This evaluation probes a recommender system's ability to mitigate clickbait by measuring performance exclusively on user interactions that result in positive post-click feedback (likes), rather than raw click-through rates. Use when the user wants to benchmark on Unspecified in provided section, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports post-click satisfaction (likes).
Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Clickbait Mitigation Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-clickbait-mitigation-eval)
---
name: clickbait-mitigation-eval
description: This evaluation probes a recommender system's ability to mitigate clickbait by measuring performance exclusively on user interactions that result in positive post-click feedback (likes), rather than raw click-through rates. Use when the user wants to benchmark on Unspecified in provided section, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports post-click satisfaction (likes).
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2009.09945
bibtex_key: [REDACTED]
confidence: medium
---
# clickbait-mitigation-eval
> Clicks can be Cheating: Counterfactual Recommendation for Mitigating Clickbait Issue — Wenjie Wang et al. (2020) (arXiv:2009.09945, 2020)
## What this evaluates
This evaluation probes a recommender system's ability to mitigate clickbait by measuring performance exclusively on user interactions that result in positive post-click feedback (likes), rather than raw click-through rates.
## Datasets
- **Unspecified in provided section** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
## Metrics
- `post-click satisfaction (likes)` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- Recommendation performance is computed exclusively on the subset of test interactions where the user provided positive post-click feedback (likes). Interactions lacking post-click feedback are excluded from evaluation.
## Input / output format
**Input**: User features $u$ and item features $i=(e,t)$, where $e$ denotes exposure features (e.g., title, cover) and $t$ denotes content features.
**Output**: A predicted preference score $Y_{u,i} = s_{\bar{\theta}}(u,i)$ used to rank items.
## Scoring recipe
```python
# 1. Filter test interactions to keep only those with positive post-click feedback (likes)
liked_interactions = [(u, i) for (u, i, y) in test_data if y == 'like']
# 2. Exclude interactions lacking post-click feedback
# 3. Compute standard recommendation performance metric (e.g., AUC/NDCG) on the filtered subset
metric_value = compute_recommender_metric(model, liked_interactions)
```
## Common pitfalls
- Conventional recommender evaluations treat all clicks as positive signals; this protocol explicitly excludes clicks without post-click feedback to isolate clickbait effects.
- Evaluating on raw click-through rate (CTR) will overestimate performance on clickbait items; this protocol requires post-click satisfaction signals.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> Distinct from the conventional recommender evaluation that treats all clicks in the testing period as positive samples*(Wei et al., [2019](#bib.bib51 "")); He and McAuley, [2016](#bib.bib18 ""))*, we evaluate recommendation performance only over clicks that end with positive post-click feedback (i.e., likes)*(Wen et al., [2020](#bib.bib53 ""))*. We do not use the clicks that lack post-click feedback due to the unawareness of user satisfaction.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{wang2020clickbait,
title={Clicks can be Cheating: Counterfactual Recommendation for Mitigating Clickbait Issue},
author={Wenjie Wang et al. (2020)},
year={2020},
note={arXiv:2009.09945}
}
```
- arXiv: 2009.09945