Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

It's a editorialized headline that only appears on HN. The submission itself (it's content) doesn't actually say anything like the title is (was? Seems title changed)


sort by: page size:

Seems like that was just a silly headline that shouldn't have been put into submission title on HN (the page doesn't put it into its title tag at all).

Why was the original HN title (which was also the heading for the article) changed? This (new) one doesn't convey the sentiments of the article.

It's the title of the original post, not editorializing for HN.

Am I missing something? The only thing pointing in that direction I see is the submission title here on HN, which is in no way reflected in the article?

I meant the HN headline. Looks like it got changed.

It is the actual title of the article, but it isn’t clear what the article is about without the byline that HN doesn’t support.

It's the headline of the actual article. I suggest you write a strongly worded letter to the editor explaining the HN submission guidelines.

Probably best send it in triplicate, just to be sure.


HN often changes titles when the moderators feel that it's inaccurate or flamebait-y.

In this case, I think it's the entire reason to read the article.


What's up with HN and these shitty titles lately? This says literally nothing. It isn't rhetorical or helpful at all. Tell me about the article.

HN headlines are often changed by moderators to match the article's title. That might have happened here.

Yeah, the title seems to be against HN editorial policy.

I've never submitted anything to HN, but I think they want you to use the original title of the article, which is what the submitter did.

Why is the HN title so different from the article's title?

The title isn’t editorialized. The title on HN is exactly the same as the original blog post

Which is the title on HN, not the title of the article.

The HN submission guidelines include the following rule:

"Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait."

The original headline is a bit sensational/clickbaity. That's a judgment call in this case, IMO, but I suspect that's why the title was changed.


Interesting. I thought editorializing titles is not accepted on HN.

My criticism was directed towards the article, not the submission.

Edit: Ah, the guidelines say unless it is misleading.

Well, I would not have called it truly misleading, just typical headline style you can often see. I did not like it, but I did not feel misled.


Yes, the submitter broke the HN guidelines by editorializing the title. On the other hand, the article's official title is uninformative. So I replaced it with the sentence from the article that most seems to describe its content (shortened to fit 80 chars). If anyone can suggest a better title, I'll change it again.

It seems the submitter changed the title, against HN policies.
next

Legal | privacy