And this is a perfect example of a time when using the original title is stupid. There's absolutely no good reason to insist on original titles for their own sake, when the original title is meaningless, lacks context, or is otherwise inadequate - none of which are necessarily the same thing as "misleading or linkbait".
The thing we want to avoid on HN is subsecond internet reflexiveness, which is what you get when putting pre-processed information directly into the reader like a mother bird dropping pre-chewed worms into baby birds' mouths.
We want reflective reactions, not reflexive ones. For that, it's good if the reader has to work a little. We're not talking about anything hard—anybody willing to work the tiniest amount, such as clicking two links instead of one, or one instead of zero, could, for instance, trivially figure out the OP.
It's good for the front page to have a mild timing-attack effect on the brain. The slight pause that induces is an opening for more reflective thought to enter. Maybe it won't, but if the door snaps shut in a second, it certainly won't.
The anger that flares up when an internet thing doesn't immediately present itself for a sugar hit is, in my opinion, the reaction of an addict. We all have this. It's necessary to catch it and inhibit it in order for the subtler reactions, like curiosity, to emerge. If you don't want to do that, plenty of other places on the internet will oblige.
We're not talking about anything hard—anybody willing to work the tiniest amount, such as clicking two links instead of one, or one instead of zero, could, for instance, trivially figure out the OP.
What you're talking about in this specific instance is a title which is almost totally devoid of any context which would explain why a potential reader should click on it. Unless you recognize the domain and knew what about the ongoing story, there is little reason to click on this link, and that's shame, as this is an important story.
It isn't about how much work anything is or isn't... it's about the value of people's time, and how the make decisions about how to invest it. I know I can't read every single story submitted to HN, and I doubt many (if any) people can. We all have to glance at the headlines and make a decision "do I spend the time to dig into this or not?"
I'm certainly not saying that titles should be a free-for-all, but I maintain that overly rigid adherence to an "original titles only" policy is misguided. Maybe "stupid" is an overly strong word, and I apologize for using unnecessarily harsh language. But I feel pretty strongly about this, because it seems blindingly obvious to me that this policy, as it's applied, is sub-optimal.
Anyway, here's a thought: IF it's that important to preserve the original title, then add a second field with space for a brief comment supplied by the submitter. Not something like Slashdot mind you, but some way for the user to (optionally) add some extra descriptive verbiage to help clarify ambiguous or context-free titles.
> Anyway, here's a thought: IF it's that important to preserve the original title, then add a second field with space for a brief comment supplied by the submitter. Not something like Slashdot mind you, but some way for the user to (optionally) add some extra descriptive verbiage to help clarify ambiguous or context-free titles.
People editorialise titles. Your suggested box would almost ask for editorialising.
People can leave a comment for anything they submit.
People editorialise titles. Your suggested box would almost ask for editorialising.
Yes, exactly! And that's a Good Thing in the cases I'm talking about. Let's quit throwing the word editorialising around like it's a pejorative. Editorialising serves a purpose and is actually needed quite often.
Mostly it serves for the editorializer to put their own spin on the topic. That's the opposite of what we want here. We want readers to make up their own minds.
That's the opposite of what we want here. We want readers to make up their own minds.
But they need enough information to make up their minds. That's what I'm trying to say here. Editorialising is NOT some universally bad thing, nor is it synonymous with "spin". If a title is something useless like "Some interesting results" then it absolutely should be editorialised, or annotated to show that it's "interesting results" in quantum mechanics, vs., content marketing, or cat-picture hosting.
All I'm saying is, not all original titles are good, and some edits serve a valuable purpose and should be allowed.
That isn't the issue at all. The issue is choosing which links to invest the time to follow, and which ones to ignore. Or do you read every link you find on HN? If so, I imagine you're one of a very select crowd who actually have the time to do that.
I don't read every link. I just use the information available (distance from the top, the age, what I can infer from the headline, the domain, the number of comments, the nature of the comments). It's an imperfect system, but in general I find its imperfection to be more tolerable than both the complaints about it and the downsides of any suggested "improvement".
By the way, on HN, please don't make things look like a quote when they're not (I didn't use the word "lazy"). I know it seems minor but it's important for respectful debate.
The logic is to prevent sensational titles. By forcing the title to be the page's heading, it limits posters ability to target the hn audience with a snappy, BuzzFeed-like, heading.
So instead, authors of the article can target any audience with snappy, BuzzFeed-like headings, and the HN poster can either copy it or rewrite it, and they'll get complaints either way...
> please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait.