I don’t know who this person is, but the example in the OP is definitely clickbait. “This phone is nearly perfect” but doesn’t say what the phone is, baiting you to click for the answer instead of just mentioning what phone we’re reviewing.
No judgement, it’s his business and he’s gotta make money, but saying he doesn’t do this just seems demonstrably wrong.
Yeah exactly, these kinds of titles make me not wanna click at all because I got no idea what it’s about (since it’s almost certainly not gonna be the perfect phone), so usually I don’t watch this kind of content at all. DeArrow really helped navigate around this crap and even LTT is kinda interesting to watch again because I finally know if a video is gonna be interesting to me BEFORE clicking it.
Another point in his favour may be the clear view of the phone in the thumbnail, considering that his target audience may recognise it by appearance. However, I still think he should’ve just said it in the title for everyone else, and for audience members for whom his video is their first exposure to the model.
Regarding the last section, though, I see clickbait titles less as ‘it doesn’t cover every nuance of the video’ and more ‘the title is overly reductive, genuinely misleading or pointlessly vague’, unless there’s artistic reasons it’s that way. A review title should name the reviewed product imo; it barely increases its length and lets people decide better whether the content’s worth their time without wasting any of it.
I also don’t think a title summarising a video’s central point well makes it bad. A good video doesn’t just repeat different wordings of the title for 10 minutes, it goes into specifics to argue why that is. I sometimes see nuanced, heavily researched video essays get some comment like ‘saved you half an hour, guys! (the main point in one sentence!)’ because the video didn’t… have some massive plot twist, I guess? And I don’t get why people would approach informational content that way. It feels anti-intellectual. Maybe the Silent Hill nurses are a work of art; the video would only be bad if it can’t argue that well or has a lot of fluff between the points.
I should be clear that I think MKBHD is chill, this is pretty minor, and I can’t blame creators for doing it when youtube’s algorithm is brutal and more and more content is fighting for our declining attention spans.
It sucks that people have to be a little baity to survive on there. I think it’s fair for people to be annoyed by it anyway, but we should direct most of that negativity at the platform and extreme examples.
(Sorry for the above being sent multiple times, I had a network issue.)
You’re suggesting larger changes to the title. I’m only saying ‘this phone’ should be replaced with ‘the pixel 69’ or whatever the model’s name is. ‘The pixel 69 is almost perfect’ is short, informative (edit: by which I mean informative enough about the video’s topic), more informative to anyone that hasn’t seen the phone before, and draws people in: why’s it almost perfect? That’s worth clicking to find out, and the details aren’t something you’d expect someone to cram into a general review title.
I fully agree that the title should encourage people to keep reading, but in my opinion ‘basic writing’ is keeping a balance between both goals of a title. The examples of clickbait I’ve given involve people optimising the title for attracting views while neglecting the goal of reasonably accurate description. If taken too far it could start making viewers feel patronised, and if I encounter a video with misleading clickbait I assume the rest of their videos will waste my time as well and avoid them. (Edit 3: I increasingly assume the same about vague titles from unfamiliar channels as well.)
If your thesis statement is the entirety of your argument then you are wasting everyone’s time.
The last part of my previous comment was about this; maybe we’re miscommunicating by using ‘summarise’ differently, as in ‘covers every point’ vs ‘vague overview’? I’ve been saying titles should do the latter because that’s what this entire conversation has been about. Nobody thinks every point of a review should be included in its title, just that the title should be reasonably descriptive about the central thesis or central question being explored. Quoting myself:
A good video doesn’t just repeat different wordings of the title for 10 minutes, it goes into specifics to argue why that is.
the video would only be bad if it can’t argue [the title’s statement] well or has a lot of fluff between the points.
TL;DR: there’s a balance to be struck between making the title descriptive and drawing clicks, and talking about full summaries as titles is a bit of a strawman.
EDIT 2: Removed some italics because they made this sound unintentionally patronising. Apologies, haha.
Another point in his favour could be the clear view of the phone in the thumbnail, considering that his target audience may recognise it by appearance. However, I still think he should’ve just said it in the title for everyone else, and for audience members for whom his video is their first exposure to the model.
Regarding the last section, though, I see clickbait titles less as ‘it doesn’t cover every nuance of the video’ and more ‘the title is overly reductive, genuinely misleading or pointlessly vague’, unless there’s artistic reasons it’s that way. A review title should name the reviewed product imo; it barely increases its length and lets people decide better whether the content’s worth their time without wasting any of it.
I also don’t think a title summarising a video’s point well makes it bad. A good video doesn’t just repeat different wordings of the title for 10 minutes, it goes into specifics to argue why. I sometimes see nuanced, heavily researched video essays get a comment like ‘saved you half an hour, guys! (the main point in one sentence!)’ because the video didn’t… have some massive plot twist, I guess? And I don’t get why people would approach informational content that way. It feels anti-intellectual. Maybe those Silent Hill nurses are a work of art; the video would only be bad if it can’t argue that well or has a lot of fluff between the points.
Another point in his favour may be the clear view of the phone in the thumbnail, considering that his target audience may recognise it by appearance. However, I still think he should’ve just said it in the title for everyone else, and for audience members for whom his video is their first exposure to the model.
Regarding the last section, though, I see clickbait titles less as ‘it doesn’t cover every nuance of the video’ and more ‘the title is overly reductive, genuinely misleading or pointlessly vague’, unless there’s artistic reasons it’s that way. A review title should name the reviewed product imo; it barely increases its length and lets people decide better whether the content’s worth their time without wasting any of it.
I also don’t think a title summarising a video’s central point well makes it bad. A good video doesn’t just repeat different wordings of the title for 10 minutes, it goes into specifics to argue why that is. I sometimes see nuanced, heavily researched video essays get some comment like ‘saved you half an hour, guys! (the main point in one sentence!)’ because the video didn’t… have some massive plot twist, I guess? And I don’t get why people would approach informational content that way. It feels anti-intellectual. Maybe the Silent Hill nurses are a work of art; the video would only be bad if it can’t argue that well or has a lot of fluff between the points.
I have not mentioned the thumbnail, only the title.
I would argue that this sort of clickbait is not really intended for person 1. A bit for person 2 but probably most for person 3, the guy looking at YouTube’s recommendation algorithm. The title purposefully omits information to draw the reader in.
Again, I’m making no arguments about this being a bad or immoral thing to do, I’m simply saying that is a classic clickbait tactic. It’s his job to draw in viewers and that’s what he’s doing.
I don’t know who this person is, but the example in the OP is definitely clickbait. “This phone is nearly perfect” but doesn’t say what the phone is, baiting you to click for the answer instead of just mentioning what phone we’re reviewing.
No judgement, it’s his business and he’s gotta make money, but saying he doesn’t do this just seems demonstrably wrong.
Yeah exactly, these kinds of titles make me not wanna click at all because I got no idea what it’s about (since it’s almost certainly not gonna be the perfect phone), so usually I don’t watch this kind of content at all. DeArrow really helped navigate around this crap and even LTT is kinda interesting to watch again because I finally know if a video is gonna be interesting to me BEFORE clicking it.
Removed by mod
Another point in his favour may be the clear view of the phone in the thumbnail, considering that his target audience may recognise it by appearance. However, I still think he should’ve just said it in the title for everyone else, and for audience members for whom his video is their first exposure to the model.
Regarding the last section, though, I see clickbait titles less as ‘it doesn’t cover every nuance of the video’ and more ‘the title is overly reductive, genuinely misleading or pointlessly vague’, unless there’s artistic reasons it’s that way. A review title should name the reviewed product imo; it barely increases its length and lets people decide better whether the content’s worth their time without wasting any of it.
I also don’t think a title summarising a video’s central point well makes it bad. A good video doesn’t just repeat different wordings of the title for 10 minutes, it goes into specifics to argue why that is. I sometimes see nuanced, heavily researched video essays get some comment like ‘saved you half an hour, guys! (the main point in one sentence!)’ because the video didn’t… have some massive plot twist, I guess? And I don’t get why people would approach informational content that way. It feels anti-intellectual. Maybe the Silent Hill nurses are a work of art; the video would only be bad if it can’t argue that well or has a lot of fluff between the points.
Removed by mod
(Adding to the other comment, last thing I swear)
I should be clear that I think MKBHD is chill, this is pretty minor, and I can’t blame creators for doing it when youtube’s algorithm is brutal and more and more content is fighting for our declining attention spans.
It sucks that people have to be a little baity to survive on there. I think it’s fair for people to be annoyed by it anyway, but we should direct most of that negativity at the platform and extreme examples.
(Sorry for the above being sent multiple times, I had a network issue.)
You’re suggesting larger changes to the title. I’m only saying ‘this phone’ should be replaced with ‘the pixel 69’ or whatever the model’s name is. ‘The pixel 69 is almost perfect’ is short, informative (edit: by which I mean informative enough about the video’s topic), more informative to anyone that hasn’t seen the phone before, and draws people in: why’s it almost perfect? That’s worth clicking to find out, and the details aren’t something you’d expect someone to cram into a general review title.
I fully agree that the title should encourage people to keep reading, but in my opinion ‘basic writing’ is keeping a balance between both goals of a title. The examples of clickbait I’ve given involve people optimising the title for attracting views while neglecting the goal of reasonably accurate description. If taken too far it could start making viewers feel patronised, and if I encounter a video with misleading clickbait I assume the rest of their videos will waste my time as well and avoid them. (Edit 3: I increasingly assume the same about vague titles from unfamiliar channels as well.)
The last part of my previous comment was about this; maybe we’re miscommunicating by using ‘summarise’ differently, as in ‘covers every point’ vs ‘vague overview’? I’ve been saying titles should do the latter because that’s what this entire conversation has been about. Nobody thinks every point of a review should be included in its title, just that the title should be reasonably descriptive about the central thesis or central question being explored. Quoting myself:
TL;DR: there’s a balance to be struck between making the title descriptive and drawing clicks, and talking about full summaries as titles is a bit of a strawman.
EDIT 2: Removed some italics because they made this sound unintentionally patronising. Apologies, haha.
Another point in his favour could be the clear view of the phone in the thumbnail, considering that his target audience may recognise it by appearance. However, I still think he should’ve just said it in the title for everyone else, and for audience members for whom his video is their first exposure to the model.
Regarding the last section, though, I see clickbait titles less as ‘it doesn’t cover every nuance of the video’ and more ‘the title is overly reductive, genuinely misleading or pointlessly vague’, unless there’s artistic reasons it’s that way. A review title should name the reviewed product imo; it barely increases its length and lets people decide better whether the content’s worth their time without wasting any of it.
I also don’t think a title summarising a video’s point well makes it bad. A good video doesn’t just repeat different wordings of the title for 10 minutes, it goes into specifics to argue why. I sometimes see nuanced, heavily researched video essays get a comment like ‘saved you half an hour, guys! (the main point in one sentence!)’ because the video didn’t… have some massive plot twist, I guess? And I don’t get why people would approach informational content that way. It feels anti-intellectual. Maybe those Silent Hill nurses are a work of art; the video would only be bad if it can’t argue that well or has a lot of fluff between the points.
Another point in his favour may be the clear view of the phone in the thumbnail, considering that his target audience may recognise it by appearance. However, I still think he should’ve just said it in the title for everyone else, and for audience members for whom his video is their first exposure to the model.
Regarding the last section, though, I see clickbait titles less as ‘it doesn’t cover every nuance of the video’ and more ‘the title is overly reductive, genuinely misleading or pointlessly vague’, unless there’s artistic reasons it’s that way. A review title should name the reviewed product imo; it barely increases its length and lets people decide better whether the content’s worth their time without wasting any of it.
I also don’t think a title summarising a video’s central point well makes it bad. A good video doesn’t just repeat different wordings of the title for 10 minutes, it goes into specifics to argue why that is. I sometimes see nuanced, heavily researched video essays get some comment like ‘saved you half an hour, guys! (the main point in one sentence!)’ because the video didn’t… have some massive plot twist, I guess? And I don’t get why people would approach informational content that way. It feels anti-intellectual. Maybe the Silent Hill nurses are a work of art; the video would only be bad if it can’t argue that well or has a lot of fluff between the points.
I have not mentioned the thumbnail, only the title.
I would argue that this sort of clickbait is not really intended for person 1. A bit for person 2 but probably most for person 3, the guy looking at YouTube’s recommendation algorithm. The title purposefully omits information to draw the reader in.
Again, I’m making no arguments about this being a bad or immoral thing to do, I’m simply saying that is a classic clickbait tactic. It’s his job to draw in viewers and that’s what he’s doing.
Removed by mod