I&#x27;ve always believed that &quot;linkbait&quot; is a MIDLEADING title or one that omits key information only to force you to click on an otherwise uninteresting title.<p>Linkbait: &quot;You won&#x27;t believe the disgusting thing this A-list star did in public!&quot;<p>Non-linkbait version: &quot;Tom Cruise accidentally stepped in dog poo.&quot;<p>The first is linkbait because it teases you to learn who the star is and what was the disgusting act (which was actually quite boring).<p>--<p>Linkbait: &quot;This company sucks at app stores!&quot;<p>Non-linkbait: &quot;Amazon sucks at app stores!&quot;<p>The first is linkbait because it forces you to click to learn which company it&#x27;s talking about.  It would most likely make the reader think it&#x27;s about Apple, or maybe Google Play Store, both of which are probably more interesting than Amazon&#x27;s store.  The second title is NOT linkbait because even though it&#x27;s inflammatory, it conveys enough information to let the reader decide whether it&#x27;s worth a click.  The reader immediately knows:<p>* It&#x27;s about Amazon app store.<p>* It&#x27;s going to be very negative.<p>If the HN reader is interested in how Amazon&#x27;s app store is doing and how users are reacting, then it will stand out as a link worth clicking.  If the HN reader doesn&#x27;t care for an opinion about amazon&#x27;s store, or doesn&#x27;t want to read a strongly-worded one, they&#x27;ll pass.  There was no baiting at all.<p>---<p>I argue that the editorializing of the article created MORE of a problem, because it wiped away an important piece of information for HN readers: that this is a strongly-worded negative review.  The edited title (&quot;Amazon is relatively new..&quot;) conveys no information about the article.  Frankly, it now sounds like a very dumb article.