Thank you for de-clickbaiting the title
And then we have the problem of people just commenting on the act of editing the title, and not the actually content. That's hypocritical of me to complain about, though.
[1] "Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait."
It's along similar lines to "Blah blah blah, and you won't believe what happens next."
Not really, there are just people who haven't seen a specific type of trick not used ad nauseam, while others have seen it a thousand times already.
"I'll know it when I see it" is sufficient here, since there's a wide variety of them and with enough experience they can be easily recognized.
In case you would like to have an easier way to learn it though:
Typically clickbait is when the article communicates something (anything, really) that could easily fit in the title itself, but refuses to do so. Advanced users compose titles that specifically pique curiosity in the average person.
Here we see a fine example: "The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches that you probably haven’t considered". We have a one word answer "Me" and 'you' in the phrase 'you probably have considered'. The poster did a nice change to get the question answered before you need to read the article.
Two quick rules of thumb will take you a long way though.
1) Titles where the reader is referred to in the second person, meaning they have the word "You" in them.
2) Titles that use imprecise emotional/colloquial phrases and speculation instead of the factual crux of the article. Doubly so when the title describes the feeling or consequence that the unstated subject will theoretically inspire.
One of the purposes of a title on the web is to convince you to click on it. Good titles drive traffic. I don't get why we all get so hung up on how titles are written. If you don't like how something is worded, don't click on it.