Dogs' eyes don't generally look sad, especially if they're quizzically raising one eyebrow. Why change the title from the much more interesting, and accurate original?
"Dogs’ Eyes Have Changed Since Humans Befriended Them"
I was actually expecting a dire clickbait sort of article, when it actually turns out to be substantive and interesting.
[poster here]: Interesting find - my phone showed the title as 'Why Do Dogs Look So Sad?', where the actual article's title is different. Looking at the page's source code under the <title> tag shows these are different. I chose the shorter version (nevermind dropping the 'so' in 'so sad' cause that's really click-bait-y). My assumption was that readers would know that the source (the Atlantic) is a reputable publication and assume the article is of substance. It's interesting that even the Atlantic needs to resort to changing the title to get those coveted clicks. In the future, i'll strictly post the _actual title_ over to HN submission.
Hm, never knew Atlantic played that game too. I know Ars A/B tests titles, and that a few of the buzzfeed type publications put a social title (ie clickbait fest) for the first day or two while a piece does the rounds of Facebook and Twitter, and replace with a sane "forever" search engine title later.
At the other extreme there's the odd dry-as-dust titled technical article that really needs some editorialising or at least posting on sub-head to have any chance of interest.
"Dogs’ Eyes Have Changed Since Humans Befriended Them"
I was actually expecting a dire clickbait sort of article, when it actually turns out to be substantive and interesting.