Stop clickbait: detecting and preventing clickbaits in online news media
Abstract
Most of the online news media outlets rely heavily on the revenues generated from the clicks made by their readers, and due to the presence of numerous such outlets, they need to compete with each other for reader attention. To attract the readers to click on an article and subsequently visit the media site, the outlets often come up with catchy headlines accompanying the article links, which lure the readers to click on the link. Such headlines are known as Clickbaits. While these baits may trick the readers into clicking, in the long-run, clickbaits usually don't live up to the expectation of the readers, and leave them disappointed. In this work, we attempt to automatically detect clickbaits and then build a browser extension which warns the readers of different media sites about the possibility of being baited by such headlines. The extension also offers each reader an option to block clickbaits she doesn't want to see. Then, using such reader choices, the extension automatically blocks similar clickbaits during her future visits. We run extensive offline and online experiments across multiple media sites and find that the proposed clickbait detection and the personalized blocking approaches perform very well achieving 93% accuracy in detecting and 89% accuracy in blocking clickbaits.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In journalism, investigative pieces are struggling to compete with sensationalist content and clickbait headlines.
“In journalism, investigative pieces are struggling to compete with sensationalist content and 'clickbait' headlines (Chakraborty et al., 2016; Munger, 2020).”
From The Second Wave of Attention Economics. Attention as a Universal Symbolic Currency on Social Media and beyond (2025) · cites this paper as Chakraborty et al., 2016
Cites
The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation.
Loewenstein, G. (1994) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.75 · Cited by 2,738 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Clickbaits exploit the cognitive phenomenon known as Curiosity Gap [1], where the headlines provide forward referencing cues to generate enough curiosity among the readers such that they become compelled to click on the link to fill the knowledge gap.”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Web of False Information: Rumors, Fake News, Hoaxes, Clickbait, and Various Other Shenanigans
Zannettou, S., Sirivianos, M., Blackburn, J., & Kourtellis, N. (2019) · Journal of Data and Information Quality · doi:10.1145/3309699 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Cognitive attraction and online misinformation
Acerbi, A. (2019) · Palgrave Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-019-0224-y · Cited by 161 · see citing works
Capturing Clicks: How the Chinese Government Uses Clickbait to Compete for Visibility
Lu, Y., & Pan, J. (2021) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2020.1765914 · Cited by 130 · see citing works
Chung, J., Kamar, E., & Amershi, S. (2023) · Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.34 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Heitmayer, M. (2025) · Interacting with Computers · doi:10.1093/iwc/iwae035 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
“In journalism, investigative pieces are struggling to compete with sensationalist content and ‘clickbait’ headlines (Chakraborty et al., 2016; Munger, 2020).”
Optimizing the recency-relevance-diversity trade-offs in non-personalized news recommendations
Chakraborty, A., Ghosh, S., Ganguly, N., & Gummadi, K. P. (2019) · Information Retrieval Journal · doi:10.1007/s10791-019-09351-2 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Chakraborty, A., Paranjape, B., Kakarla, S., & Ganguly, N.
- Affiliations
- Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur (IN)
- Venue
- 2016 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2016-08
- Pages
- 9-16
- OpenAlex
- W2952861497
- Cited by
- 368
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 53 · 2022: 62 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 20 · 2015: 2
- FWCI
- 78.13
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Keywords
- clickbait detection, clickbait headlines, online news, browser extension, personalized filtering, reader attention
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review