Since your question is serious, here's one serious answer. The article is really two (or three, depending how you count them) pieces of blogspam spliced together with a linkbait title on top. So while it's true that it doesn't draw exclusively on the NYT piece, that doesn't make it original, because everything else is cribbed too. Isn't it?
blogspam also has another meaning, namely the
post of a blogger who creates no-value-added posts
to submit them to other sites.) It is done by
posting (usually automatically) random comments
or promoting commercial services to blogs, wikis,
guestbooks, or other publicly accessible online
discussion boards. Any web application that
accepts and displays hyperlinks submitted by
visitors may be a target.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_in_blogs
So, while that doesn't address you argument lets call a spade a spade. You may not like the post but that doesn't make it "blogspam".
(You could argue that terms evolve and thats fair enough.)
Second, the headline "Google admits those infamous brainteasers were completely useless for hiring" doesn't strike me as a typical "linkbait title".
Regardless - I don't think I'm going to be able to convince you - but I did want to understand better.
Maybe its ironic then that the NYTimes links to our post from here...
