That's a great alternative to the headline you fixated on. But the article is actually about the history of maple syrup, so I think you missed the point.

I can't eat history: it is of no use to me, especially in an article about maple syrup.

The title "Why the cheapest maple syrup is the best" asks a question and the article refuses to answer it quickly. I ddn't miss the point - I merely took the title at face value.

I still don't know any more than I did before about the history of maple syrup and that's good - less of my mind wasted on irrelevant information. But I _do_ know that grade B tastes better - something infinitely more useful. And I don't need the history as a referent, since the syrups themselves are the referents (though I shall be loathe to buy any grade A as a referent - perhaps you can do that and we shall taste).

The article was a poor example of bait-and-switch journalism.

I don't know why fools bother to downvote someone because he finds a meandering plotless plodding article to be uninteresting!

Maybe they downvoted you because you are parading your lack of attention span (or perhaps your lack of comprehension). To use terms like "fools" or "bait and switch" when you really meant "tl;dr" or "why aren't there more pictures" is more a comment on you than on the article.

For one, you're being needlessly insulting.

And come on, get used to headlines. If it asks a question that can be answered in a sentence or two and yet there is a full article attached you shouldn't get confused. It's not bait-and-switch; the entire article is about the syrup.