Talk:Clickbait

Archives (Index)

2015 2017 2018 2019 2020 2022 2023

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Providing an example

At the end of paragraph two, the article mentions that not all instances where clicking sends the user to an unexpected destination is clickbait, I'd suggest providing an example, say, the thing that sends people to that Rick Astley video, the action that I apparently can't name or else this post gets blocked. 2601:601:1100:46D0:71D0:72BC:C2A9:E676 (talk) 07:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

What kind of clickbait links to a story told over many pages?

One of the more annoying kinds of clickbait is where the link is to a story which is told a few sentences at a time over dozens of pages (with many of the pages being "filler"). Sometimes the story does in fact live up to the description by the end, although not always. Is that specifically covered in this article? -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Merge. The justification by advocates was based on length and overlap. The terms may not be the same, but clickbait is more common and the difference can be explained in a single article. -- Beland (talk) 09:33, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

---

There's a new article on Engagement bait that I think is a synonym for Clickbait. The page creator thinks that it's a the broader topic (see the edit summary here), but I'd argue that even if this is the case it is best discussed here because Clickbait is the more widely use term, and any differences in use or scope are best discussed on this page. Klbrain (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose, these aren't synonyms as there's no aspect of curiosity or reveal. It's much closer to rage baiting (just without the rage), and could be merged there if there wasn't much else to say about it. Belbury (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

So you oppose a merge to clickbait but would support a merge to rage bait? FaviFake (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Sure. Belbury (talk) 13:26, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Could you explain why? After reading the example you provided, it seems you consider engagement bait to be less ragebait-y compared to clickbait, not the other way around: (emphasis supplied)

Engagement bait = "See provocative statement" → [...] → "Feel satisfied"

• Clickbait = "See surprising headline" → [...] → "Feel disappointed or misled"

FaviFake (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Clickbait provokes the viewer to click a link to see more information elsewhere ("you won't believe this one weird trick!") where the link doesn't live up to the headline; the viewer's reaction is disappointment and they do nothing else.

Engagement bait provokes the viewer to react to a self-contained piece of content that catches their attention ("95% of people can't think of a fruit that contains the letter E, can you?"); that reaction is neutral to satisfying and the viewer may interact by commenting or sharing the piece.

Rage bait provokes the viewer to react to a self-contained piece of content that angers them ("Local politician kills puppies, police refuse to act"); that reaction is cathartic and the viewer may interact.

Those are just my understandings of the terms, but to me, engagement bait seems like it has rage bait as an angrier (and more popular) subset, while being much less connected to clickbait. Belbury (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Merge the terms. I think engagement bait is some marketing guru's euphemism for clickbait. the whole point of "engagement" is to have the reader/consumer engage with the information and read on beyond the "hook" - i.e. take the bait. Hence "clickbait". Everything else are just variations on the fundamental theme of clickbait. Wikipedia articles should cover the whole topic, not be fragmented into numerous content forks. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 07:40, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - Click-bait is explicitly for click-throughs. Engagement bait is overarching and can involve more than just "clicking". GobsPint (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

  Comment: That article says Engagement bait is manipulative content that is designed to elicit users into interaction. While the article about Clickbait say "... there is no universally agreed-upon definition of clickbait ... and also mentions "A defining characteristic of clickbait is misrepresentation in the enticement presented to the user to manipulate them to click onto a link." i.e. interact with the content. The two descriptions are essentially the same, but I think Clickbait is the more recognizable common name and a far more developed article. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

  Clickbait is typically understood to be a click. Engagement bait can require additional engagement...comments, multiple click through, photo contributions, etc.GobsPint (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  But before one engages in detail with the content, one has to click. Engagement is merely a subset of what happens after the click. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  Engagement bait does not necessarily require a click. It could encompass gestures, live participation, etc. Clickbait is a subset of engagement bait.GobsPint (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  But first one needs to choose to interact with the content by selecting to do so .... in the broadest sense of the term, that choice is a "click". - Cameron Dewe (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  As previously mentioned, engagement bait does not necessarily require a click. It could be a swipe, it could be a physical gesture, an eye motion, etc. Engagmeent bait can also require multiple steps, e.g. taking photos, uploading a photo, tagging the photo, etc. Clickbait was the engagement bait of Web 1.0. It has evolved.GobsPint (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  That difference is only relevant if it's covered by reliable sources. This is the first time I've ever heard such an argument, and I highly doubt it will be reflected in RS. FaviFake (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

  Not quite GobsPint's point, but this Atlantic article has an angle on 2024 engagement bait "seeking views above all else", explicitly mentioning "clicks" as not being relevant any more. Belbury (talk) 13:32, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

  I'd say that the sequences of user engagement were quite different, as I understand the two topics:

  • Clickbait = "See surprising headline" → "Click headline to find out more" → "Receive inaccurately described page" → "Feel disappointed or misled"
  • Engagement bait = "See provocative statement" → "Consider own reaction to that statement" → "Click to like, share or leave a comment" → "Feel satisfied"

  They may both involve a click, and both provoke the user into engaging with some content, but the outcomes seem different enough that I don't think we can describe them as synonymous, or one as a subset of the other. Belbury (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Merge Clearly not enough content to justify multiple pages, and one page can explain the terminology for closely related concepts even if there are some differences. Reywas92^Talk 16:41, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Merge – Even if these were different things, which they are likely not if one checks the RS, the distinction wouldn't be enough to justify keeping two different pages. Readers are better served by a unified page regardless, especially since there's just 1 paragraph of content. FaviFake (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Additional examples

One of the common types of internet clickbait is a fake picture of a non-existent product that looks like it might be something that might be useful to you. The usual result on clicking on it is a very long list of products that never gets to the one that you wanted to see. If you capture the screen and then do a reverse image search, if you only get results on youtube and no one actually selling it, then it is almost certainly clickbait. One that has been showing up forever is a cute-looking 1-inch cubical spy camera with all sorts of "bells & whistles". Although similar products do actually exist, this particular one doesn't, and the long list of result products won't have any of the real ones, so you keep on scrolling down. That is what the clickbait is intended to accomplish. Once you get wise to this, you don't get caught as often. agb 173.233.167.94 (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)