It allows for plenty of leeway, and in my experience alternative titles are accepted and will stand unless they are significantly worse than the original. It happens even with major announcements with hundreds of votes. @dang isn’t some mindless robot who must always enforce one way of doing things. The instructions are, as the page title suggests, guidelines.
> I thought that HN had a policy where the titles used are taken verbatim from the page being linked to, unless they're so completely terrible that an alternative title is needed.
"Please don't do things to make titles stand out, like using uppercase or exclamation points, or adding a parenthetical remark saying how great an article is. It's implicit in submitting something that you think it's important.
...
Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait."
> The strict requirement of using the exact title as the article was lifted a few months ago
The title thing seems to have caused confusion. dang has said that there hasn't been a change in policy (nor in the way the policy has been applied) and that the policy has always been "the original title is preferred except when it is misleading or linkbait."
But this meme of "you must only ever use the original title, even if it's terrible" is pretty strong.
I think people don't understand that HN seems to prefer titles that convey little meaning over titles that create kneejerk reactions. There are plenty of posts on HN from people who are responding to the title, and who haven't read the submitted article.
(EDIT: I think I upvoted you. I meant to. I might have accidentally downvoted, and I'm sorry if I did).
Perhaps, but a comment like this lowers quality even further. Instead, why not suggest a better title? We're always happy to change them when users find a better (i.e. more accurate and neutral) way to phrase things.
I don't think so. Even you don't seem to think so, since you felt obliged to add the word "clone".
But the other titles you suggested are fine, so we'll use one of those.
Would you please re-read the HN guidelines (http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)? You've done several things they ask you not to do. For example, "If you want to say something to us, please send it to hn@ycombinator.com."
> I thought the original title a little inflammatory
In that case it's good to change it. From the guidelines: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait." Inflammatory is usually linkbait.
When changing a title to make it more accurate or neutral, it's best to use a subtitle or a representative phrase from the article.
> You don't understand what you are talking about.
Please don't address a fellow user this way.
> Basically, the rule is that the title on HN should be exactly the same as the title of the blog post.
That's mistaken. The actual rule is to use the original title unless it is misleading or linkbait: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Had you known that, you'd have known that we were upholding the rule, not breaking it. It's standard practice, when a title breaks the HN guidelines, to replace it with neutral, representative language from the article.
Does that mean we get every edit right? Of course not, but if you're going to object, please do so on the basis of what the guidelines actually say.
The HN guidelines call for changing titles that are misleading or linkbait, and we do that all the time. But I can't think of a better one here. I guess we'll leave it as is.
> Except when they consider the original title "click baity" and change that too.
The HN guidelines (edit: which are at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and linked at the bottom of every page) say not to use the original title when it is misleading or linkbait. How could that be clearer?
Do we judge every case correctly? Good lord no. That's why we change things when people point out our mistakes. The community contribution here is considerable, so the best way to complain about a title is to suggest a better one.
The guideline also explains why titles can't be automated in the way you suggest: the software would have to identify what is misleading or linkbait. If anyone can show us such software, believe me, no one would use it more eagerly.
>> "Still somewhat amazed at how discussion around a successful example of product-market fit degenerated into such bile"
The original title was the problem. Unfortunately the original title was created by the HN submitter (as far as I can tell) and it wasn't 100% accurate. If there's one thing people on HN do well it's pick holes in things that aren't 100% correct. It doesn't excuse some of the bile you're referring to but I think it reinforces the need not to create our own titles when submitting and to follow the HN guidelines around submissions.[1]
> Please don't do things to make titles stand out, like using uppercase or exclamation points, or saying how great an article is. It's implicit in submitting something that you think it's important.
> Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.
That’s not the rule.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It allows for plenty of leeway, and in my experience alternative titles are accepted and will stand unless they are significantly worse than the original. It happens even with major announcements with hundreds of votes. @dang isn’t some mindless robot who must always enforce one way of doing things. The instructions are, as the page title suggests, guidelines.
reply