Interesting linked article… and the chain of links it leads to, including your earlier rant about “SEO-friendly” headlines linking/quoting a Washington Post column on the subject. Things have evolved somewhat since that column; now, instead of avoiding clever wordplay in favor of cramming in references to every celebrity and topic that’s currently trendy in hope of getting search engine hits (but wording them in boringly straightforward ways because search engines don’t get wordplay), the trendy thing now is social-media sharing, so the popular headline style is “clickbait” to arouse enough curiosity to get people to read the article (“6 Mind-Blowing Facts You Never Would Have Guessed!”) linking to articles that arouse enough artificial emotion of some sort to get them to click on the “share” button. At least the old-style SEO-friendly headlines actually told the reader what the article was about.
This is, incidentally, why I don’t work in New Media: I am far more likely to come up with a title that screams “WTF?” than a title that tugs at your clicking finger. And I never know what’s going to be picked up by social media, or why; if I did, I’d hang out my shingle and license that content for a small, or better yet a large, fee. I did set up the requisite social-media buttons three of them, anyway but none of them give me any feedback other than “Yep, somebody shared this,” and I don’t feel compelled to subscribe to some complicated analytics package just to bolster my Klout score (which, plus or minus a point or two, has been 59 for quite a long time).
I do two and a half; I am active on Twitter, I maintain a presence on Facebook, once in a while I drop in on Google+ which may appear to be more than “once in a while” now that YouTube has connected its comment function to Google+ and, just for S&Gs, I reactivated my MySpace account. Maybe two and three quarters, then.
Your titles actually do arouse enough of my curiosity to often get me to click on them, but I’m probably not the normal target audience for advertiser-centric sites. (Yours clearly isn’t one of those; AdBlockPlus only blocks 1 of 94 items on this page; I’m not sure what that one is.)