11–20 of 150 posts
This title manipulation is the reason I abandoned my real account on HN. I just don't want that someone else change what I wrote while keeping my name on it. I won't go as far as accusing HN for impersonation (if that's the name), but please, if you change original title, at least remove original submitter name.
You can make some very small changes to titles. Thus, if you had used Vulnerability in {windows} ICMPv6 could allow Denial of Service (microsoft.com) 15 points by vog 7 hours ago | 11 comments You'd have stuck with the original title, and provided the needed extra information. I agree that it's a problem when the original title is lousy. Or when the original title is both lousy and longer than 80 chars. > Result: I h…
> it's pretty obvious that an article from MS is going to be talking about how MS does stuff Ever heard of research.microsoft.com?
Yes.
The submission clearly says microsoft.com, not research.microsoft.com
Didn't you know that HN shows the research subdomain in submission titles?
EDIT: Sorry, this reply sounds a bit snarky.
EDIT2: I'm wrong! Thanks to TeMPOraL for pointing out my error about HNSearch and HN.
Example:
Vulnerability in ICMPv6 could allow Denial of Service (was: Ping of Death Reloaded)
There's a guideline that you're not supposed to editorialise titles. When an editorialised title is detected, it is usually corrected. I happen to disagree with this policy and I think it's a somewhat overly rigid application of the guidelines. However, this is why it's happening, and it makes some sense from at least one perspective. And, after all, this is entirely pg's call to make.
Which included David Byrne's (slightly misinformed) thoughts on the Aaron Swartz case. As such I titled it something like "David Byrne on Aaron Swartz" - it was changed to "Civil Disobedience" (the title of the blog article).
Although the old title may be have been guilty of "editorialisation" in some sense, the new title gives no indication of why it would be of interest to HN readers.
I really think this policy does a considerable deal of harm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's pretty obvious that an article from MS is going to be talking about how MS does stuff Ever heard of research.microsoft.com?
> Ever heard of research.microsoft.com? Yes. The submission clearly says microsoft.com, not research.microsoft.com Didn't you know that HN shows the research subdomain in submission titles? EDIT: Sorry, this reply sounds a bit snarky. EDIT2: I'm wrong! Thanks to TeMPOraL for pointing out my error about HNSearch and HN.
Oops. I didn't. Is there somewhere a written collection of rules to learn?
I will just quote what I said a few days ago: It's worse than that. Since you can't editorialize titles and some authors like to give their articles poetic, meaningless names like "A butterfly in the sky," when the actual article talks about a security exploit in Bitcoin, coded in Go and released by Wikileaks. I often find myself ignoring interesting articles on HN only to go read them later on reddit with a much mor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ever heard of research.microsoft.com? Yes. The submission clearly says microsoft.com, not research.microsoft.com Didn't you know that HN shows the research subdomain in submission titles? EDIT: Sorry, this reply sounds a bit snarky. EDIT2: I'm wrong! Thanks to TeMPOraL for pointing out my error about HNSearch and HN.
> The submission clearly says microsoft.com, not research.microsoft.com. Didn't you know that HN shows the research subdomain in submission titles? Oops. I didn't. Is there somewhere a written collection of rules to learn?
It's an annoying bug, it keeps getting raised as a problem, but it's never been dealt with.
The problem is not that titles are edited, but that such edits are not indicated in any way, effectively putting someone else's words in submitter's mouth. It is simply unacceptable.
The original title should be kept somewhere on the comments page if possible, to show that the title was edited. Example: Vulnerability in ICMPv6 could allow Denial of Service (was: Ping of Death Reloaded)
I will just quote what I said a few days ago: It's worse than that. Since you can't editorialize titles and some authors like to give their articles poetic, meaningless names like "A butterfly in the sky," when the actual article talks about a security exploit in Bitcoin, coded in Go and released by Wikileaks. I often find myself ignoring interesting articles on HN only to go read them later on reddit with a much mor…