Tbf, reading the headline I also assumed the author accidentally took them home. I’m pretty sure this ambiguity is on purpose, and should be frowned upon.
The ambiguity of what exactly is meant by ‘nightmare’. It intentionally leaves it up to the readers interpretation what could be meant, and because of the harshness of the used word, the reader immediately thinks of the worst possible outcome - an infestation of your own home.
That’s on you for assuming, it’s not a long article and it’s not unclear how it all played out. Had the author not bought new clothes and washed the rest that would have been the outcome.
The thing I’m trying to get at: a good title shouldn’t leave room for assumptions, and I’m pretty sure this kinda stuff is being done just to make you click, not to provide good journalism.
Tbf, reading the headline I also assumed the author accidentally took them home. I’m pretty sure this ambiguity is on purpose, and should be frowned upon.
What ambiguity? “Booking.com ignored me after my bedbug nightmare” is a fine headline. Seeing bedbugs on your pillow when you walk in is a nightmare.
The ambiguity of what exactly is meant by ‘nightmare’. It intentionally leaves it up to the readers interpretation what could be meant, and because of the harshness of the used word, the reader immediately thinks of the worst possible outcome - an infestation of your own home.
That’s on you for assuming, it’s not a long article and it’s not unclear how it all played out. Had the author not bought new clothes and washed the rest that would have been the outcome.
The thing I’m trying to get at: a good title shouldn’t leave room for assumptions, and I’m pretty sure this kinda stuff is being done just to make you click, not to provide good journalism.
Shouldn’t making assumptions about an article before reading it be frowned upon too?