[b112]

If I call some place I've never heard of before, know nothing about, my first interaction with them on the phone shouldn't result in "Oh my god, these people seem like scammy used car salespeople!"

If your assertion is true, that it's a joke, it's going to backfire. That's because that call is the equivalent of what's happening here. I called, and the person on the other end ... thinking it a joke, funny, did their best to convince me that they're scam artists.

That's what's happened here. I know nothing about this website, and this was my first impression. And no... my initial reaction isn't "Hmm. This website seems scammy and lame. Maybe I should spend my time investigating to determine if I'm right or wrong!". If I did that, I'd spend my entire life looking at scammy websites... I have better things to do.

Like I said, it's a shame to see this on what seems to be reputable website. But I literally stopped reading, and moved on to other things when I saw it. The website owner should take that into account.

(And indeed, I may be some small ratio, 2% of users, but it could be higher. It could be a lot higher. Or it could obviously be 0.2%. But that's a bold move, putting a big "I'm a scam artist!" sign on a website, first engagement is going to bite.)

Heck... if I was Google, any page with "One * trick" on it would be downranked.

TL;DR don't put a massive sign on your website that reads "I'm a scam artist, clickbait website!"

[jstanley]

It pattern-matched "scam" so you classified it as "scam" and absolved yourself of doing any further thinking.

If something pattern-matches "legit" are you equally blase about sticking with your snap judgment and absolving yourself of doing any further thinking?

[b112]

Snap judgement? I cite my phone call scenario, which this parallels.

Should I.. what? Call back and see if they laugh and say "Oh no, we're not really used car salespeople, what was a just a good joke!". Why would I, or anyone do that? Yet this is apparently a "snap judgement" and "not thinking" to you?

So why would I spend time trying to determine if the people which purposefully acted as scam artists and clickbait boneheads on websites, are actually playing a joke? What's in it for me? As I said, I'd have to do this for every single clickbait website.

I don't read clickbait websites, and I'm not going to take the time to see if it was all a big jolly joke.

[Digit-Al]

It hardly requires a huge amount of investigation to see that's not a scam link. It literally has the blog authors name attached to it, along with a post date and a "read the full story"link that has the same web address as the blog. It's just a few seconds work to see it's legit.

[b112]

You're not fully getting it. I said with clarity that I know it's pointing back to his website. But any website with a click-bait title of 'One small trick" or some such, is a scammy, clickbaitish site.

[DHolzer]

Any negative aspect of media from the past can, and often will, be transformed into a positive trait in future media.

People embrace vinyl records in an age of digital music. They take photos with analog cameras even though everyone has a phone in their pocket. Musicians use the harsh artifacts of MP3 compression as creative effects in their music. The examples are countless, and they all emerge precisely when the media that once produced these unwanted artifacts becomes obsolete.

If you haven't noticed this shift, I suggest you learn to recognize it quickly. Otherwise, you might miss out on great content because it doesn't make it past your mental spam filter.

And if you don't want to adapt, that's fine too—just don't tell others how to manage their websites.

[b112]

Nothing you cited has anything to do with emulating scam artists and clickbait boneheads, and trying to claim acting like a clickbait artist is all the rage, is invalid.

However, your commandments to not provide my opinion, predicated upon your opinion, is the gold standard in ridiculousness.

Way over the line.