Matt Cutts defines link bait as anything "interesting enough to catch people's attention[1].
What the fuck is HN's problem with interesting headlines? Should everyone create articles and put headlines on them like "My overview of the pros and cons of the Super Game Boy as a platform for game developers"?
Linkbait isn't an interesting headline. Its a headline that is interesting at the expense of not being an accurate reflection of the content of the article for which it serves as a headline.
Its a trick, and unsurprisingly, people don't like to be tricked.
Well, that's your definition of Link Bait but as far as I can see it's not the generally accepted definition of Link Bait (outside of the hyper critical anti-marketing world of certain elements of the HN readership).
Perhaps you should refer to that type of article as "Link Bait and Switch".
I would contend, however, that in the case of this article it's neither. It's just a strong headline attached to a well written article about the Super Game Boy.
And article with the title "intricacies of x86 branch prediction" is going to be read by us, it doesn't need to be called "how to predict the future".
I've seen the term "linkbait" (never two words, and never capitalized) used lots of places besides HN, and always with that meaning.
> I would contend, however, that in the case of this article it's neither.
Neither what? Only one thing was addressed in your post, so "neither" doesn't make any sense.
> It's just a strong headline attached to a well written article about the Super Game Boy.
A strong headline does two things: provides a clear idea of the thesis of the article and draws attention. At best, the one here does the second without doing the first, making it a weak headline. At worst, it creates a misleading impression as to the general thrust of the article.
"Linkbait" seems a pretty fair description, though its probably not the worst instance in the world.
You can't say that the title of every single type of article should just be an objective summary of what's in the article. That's like criticising Steinbeck for calling it "The Grapes of Wrath" instead of "Dirt Farming Oakies Do California".