Here's 1 reason why I won't read your drivel

Don't disagree with that at all. Takeaways, plural, sometimes also let's the reader know there is more than one item being addressed in story.
'Takeaways: State U QB should be benched' works for me, too.

 

But it needs to tell you something in a way that makes you want to read more. And if "State U QB should be benched" is only one of the takeaways, the reader might think, "yeah, I think so too," and move on.

With the newspaper, we already have the reader's money whether they read every word of every story, or just skim the headlines. On digital platforms, getting people to actually read the story is the important thing. Digital subscribers won't pay to skim headlines; they're going to need to be convinced to spend four or five minutes reading the story. (And, of course, whatever pennies that come from digital advertising are still dependent on pageviews.)

Digital heds have to be written very much in a fashion that makes the reader think, "Really? Tell me more." There are a lot of wrong ways to do it, of course. But also remember that character count is way less of an issue on a well-designed site. So I might tilt the example above toward "Why Jimmy Gunslinger's job as State U QB is on the line" -- to get Jimmy's name in the hed for search engines, and to try to get the reader to say, "Wait, why?" and click, rather than "Yeah, I think so too," and scroll on.

 

I get that, but too often it's just false advertising.

"How the Astros swept the Indians" is almost always nothing more than a game/feature story that says "Astros sweep Indians."

There is nothing particularly insightful, nothing truly indicating "how" it happened beyond the normal reporting of any such event.

Remember, news stories are SUPPOSED to say who, what, where, how and why. Readers should EXPECT that without being prodded into it by a "How" or "Why" headline. I think it's the world's biggest crutch because we're too damn lazy/overworked to think of a really good head to draw them in. Seriously, you are taking the most Easy Button headline possible --- "Astros sweep Indians" --- sticking a "How" on it and suddenly expecting it to attract attention. A trained monkey could do it.

I get that tons of research has been done and technically, I'm wrong here. But suffice it to say I STAY AWAY FROM heads that say, "See what happened next" or "you won't believe the reaction" specifically because I have been burned/disappointed by the result too many times in the past.

 

I get what a lot of the posters are saying, but this seems like a bunch of "old man yells at cloud" going on.

In print, headlines are meant to draw people into a story. It's the exact same principle for digital, just modernized. There's a difference between a clickable headline and "clickbait."

 

So, naturally, this story shows up high in my Google news feed Saturday evening. There is absolutely no "how" in the story. Reads like they topped a running blog with an AP lead.

How UT Vols beat Auburn 30-24 to end SEC losing streak

 

This gets to a point I've made at my shop for a while, content is going either long or short.

Back in the day, we loved the 500-600 word three-source features because in print, they look robust but not daunting. Online, you either deliver the news in a concise way (as we were all taught in J-school), or you try to have something worth buckling in for. I know it drove designers nuts because they didn't have stories that looked "right" on a print page.

I think the listicles are a nice way to break up a 400-500 word story visually on an online page. A lot of the time, it's collecting everything you need in that length, but it doesn't look like just a block of text.

 

In that case, you'd be doing it wrong. QB should be benched is its own headline.

I think takeaways are a little like those financial tools that caused the 2008 crash (stick with me here). You come out of a game and you have a lot of things that could be headlines (O-line has been better than we thought, receivers drop the ball too much, secondary is ruined by injuries). Depending on interest, maybe all become headlines, maybe some. I can still use them as part of a combo story with the ones that don't warrant headlines, and maybe rehash the big points that already have headlines (bench the QB).

And of course, market size factors in. If I cover Bama, I might write all those. If I cover Oregon, I might write some. If I cover a mid-major or spunky FCS team with a small devoted fanbase (Akron, Air Force, NC A&T), I might package most of the more technical stuff in something like this and only break out the bigger things.

 

I believe they just changed the headline of the running live blog after putting three graphs at the top to conclude it.

My gut is people are still reading that hours after the game, clicking it, finding it on Google, so it probably behooves them to not just leave it. Maybe you just put your recap in there for the text. I oddly don't know if it's false advertising. If I read a live blog top to bottom, I probably will know how UT beat Auburn (I might also know if I watched the game, which makes our role an ever-changing one).

 

I find that 600 is pretty much my sweet spot. Usually by then I've said all I need to say. I've set out before wanting to write one of those longer features, but it's never felt appropriate when I'm actually writing it.

Meanwhile, I've worked with others who've bragged in the newsroom about their 1,1oo-word gamer on a pretty meaningless game in the grand scheme of things.

 

Yeah, that's what it looks like. You can tell by looking at the URL.

 

Headline I confronted today:

Local blood bank says it is ‘critically low’ on this type of blood, asks for donors

The situation is obviously so critical we won't even tell you which type of blood. Click to find out. Because our financial situation is even more critical.

Fuck online.

Shut. It. Down.

 

Pretty much sounds like most AP gamers, now, just without the numbers.