I prefer when names make it clear what it is, and in my opinion linkbait do that. Whether it ends up as being associated with good or bad, that really depends on how people use the term. If we’d only use linkbait for stuff that’s really good and we used another term (link whoring..?) for the sleazy attempts – then we’ll be able to associate linkbait with the better.

Or we could make up a super sweet word with a nice sounding to it, and end up having it associated with something bad. I can’t stop thinking about insurance – as I see it “insurance” is just a nice cover up word for “legal betting” – how well that word worked out for them really depends on who you ask. My point being that how we use the term will make it good or bad.

I don’t foresee ‘hook’ overtaking ‘linkbait’ any tiome soon though. ; )

I was a huge critic of the piece you’re talking about – Loren’s Google Adsense Terrorism link post. It was sensational and definitely over the top (at the expense of his credibility).

I think the inconsistent definition of linkbait is a large part of the issue. It’s a new word that has not been properly defined by a single authority which leads to language and semantics problems which leads to misuse of the word – the same way that some people (incorrectly) associate SEO’s with “spammers” or blackhat hackers with “criminals”.

I wrote Linkbait is the New Bullshit as a result of one title that was simply over the top. Loren’s piece on Adsense aiding terrorism. The piece was nothing but conjecture and the title was chosen solely because it was inflammatory.

I equate ‘linkbait’ with National Enquirer titles, and ‘hooks’ with say, Ogilvy ads.