Linkbait: "You won't believe the disgusting thing this A-list star did in public!"
Non-linkbait version: "Tom Cruise accidentally stepped in dog poo."
The first is linkbait because it teases you to learn who the star is and what was the disgusting act (which was actually quite boring).
--
Linkbait: "This company sucks at app stores!"
Non-linkbait: "Amazon sucks at app stores!"
The first is linkbait because it forces you to click to learn which company it's talking about. It would most likely make the reader think it's about Apple, or maybe Google Play Store, both of which are probably more interesting than Amazon's store. The second title is NOT linkbait because even though it's inflammatory, it conveys enough information to let the reader decide whether it's worth a click. The reader immediately knows:
* It's about Amazon app store.
* It's going to be very negative.
If the HN reader is interested in how Amazon's app store is doing and how users are reacting, then it will stand out as a link worth clicking. If the HN reader doesn't care for an opinion about amazon's store, or doesn't want to read a strongly-worded one, they'll pass. There was no baiting at all.
---
I argue that the editorializing of the article created MORE of a problem, because it wiped away an important piece of information for HN readers: that this is a strongly-worded negative review. The edited title ("Amazon is relatively new..") conveys no information about the article. Frankly, it now sounds like a very dumb article.