This is a headline that you should consider problematic: “3-in-5 Canadians attribute climate change and global warming to human activity: survey”. It doesn’t matter if the ratio is 3 in 5 or 0 in 5, or what the sample size was, or what the statistical methodology was. It’s a meaningless statement. If I am hoping that it reveals something about the truth or falsehood that climate change is attributable to human activity, I should be disappointed. The headline backs nothing up. It just makes a statement that 60% of 1000 people surveyed, believe that climate change is human caused. That is merely an opinion, a point of view. It does not prove that climate change is human caused. These 1000 people surveyed are not climate scientists. What on earth do they know?
Interesting question. I think I gravitate towards transparent headlines. If it clearly tells me what I'm going to read and why it is of interest, I will click, assuming it is something I am genuinely interested in. Like yourself I think I've also developed a criteria or framework for evaluating each headline. Though mostly in the form of reasons to reject. Click bait being the obvious reason to avoid or ignore.
Interesting question. I think I gravitate towards transparent headlines. If it clearly tells me what I'm going to read and why it is of interest, I will click, assuming it is something I am genuinely interested in. Like yourself I think I've also developed a criteria or framework for evaluating each headline. Though mostly in the form of reasons to reject. Click bait being the obvious reason to avoid or ignore.