"I'm used to seeing online pieces with linkbaiting headlines that take more liberties than a drunken sailor. But I was particularly struck by this review of the Nook in Business Insider. The headline make a very very strong statement that there is NO question whether you should pay $40 more for a glow-light Nook, as opposed to a no-light Kindle. But the review itself is somewhat equivocal. Here is the payoff sentence, under the subheading, "Should you buy it?"

"If you read a lot in the dark or low light, then yes, you should definitely buy the new Nook." Note the reviewer's word "If."

Clearly the review recommends the Nook over Kindle, but not as strongly as the headline. The headline is even more unjustified since the entire review ignores one of the most important factors in the competition: the comparative services and buying experiences of B&N and Amazon. I understand this is a review of a hardware update, but how can you not match the services against each other when your headline is demanding one choice over another? That's like making a buying recommendation of an Android phone over the iPhone (or vice versa) without considering the operating system or the apps.

The actual review, really, is perfectly fine. I was just struck by the headline, not just in this case, but as an example of a disappointing trend of excess and exaggeration in heds of web pieces. Unfortunately, the payoff for such stuff is so great that it's just about futile to suggest anything different. Any suggestions?

Shared publiclyView activity