Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Untitled topic

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 150 posts

Re: undefined

#41

Post by brador »

derefr wrote: post #20
sker wrote: post #2

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…

It's kind of funny, I find myself doing the opposite--when I see a completely meaningless title on the HN front page, I assume it's actually something much more interesting and a mod de-editorialized it into meaninglessness, so I click through to see what it is.

It's trust. Over time you learn to trust the HN headlines for accuracy. Editorialization leads to overhyping junk articles for clicks.

Re: undefined

#42

Post by aaron695 »

huhtenberg wrote: post #9

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.

I think it's not really putting words in the submitters mouth since

A. We all know it happens. B. It's replacing it with the actual title written by the author. It can't be confused with words written by the OP.

Personally no rule is perfect and simple things like just changing it can work. We all know or quickly learn the rule.

It could be worst like reddit style where the titles have collapsed and are consistently emotive/sensational/misleading to get the clicks.

Re: undefined

#43

Post by tomp »

I agree with the sentiment expressed in this post, and also think that in some cases more descriptive titles are more than welcome. Maybe we could add a rule that the description has to be in square brackets (like [video] or [scribd]).

Re: undefined

#44

Post by turing »

As far as I can tell, my title was shorter and still more accurate than the article's title.

Really? Because I had no idea what the original title was referencing, whereas the new title gave an accurate summary.

Re: undefined

#45

Post by mpclark »

amouat wrote: post #14
swombat wrote: post #4

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.

I submitted this article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5181742 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 wh…

So it seems that the problem here is one field trying to do two jobs.

It would take a change to the way things are presented, but what about having a title that is the same as the original article, and then another line -- a subtitle, if you will -- that (optionally) can contain the poster's rationale for contributing the link.

In this case it could be:

Civil Disobedience

David Byrne on Aaron Swartz

Re: undefined

#46

Post by quadhome »

sker wrote: post #2

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…

The article about the Android/PRNG security flaw is aptly editorialized...

Thank you.

I revised the title for that link several times. My final edit lifted the style of the Ars Technica[1] headline, but specifically added the more technical "Java and OpenSSL crypto PRNG" that I worried would be incomprehensible to the layman...

Though, the mods did remove my trailing "." from text. ;-)

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6215972

Re: undefined

#47

Post by levosmetalo »

subsystem wrote: post #30

This thread will probably disappear soon as one of the few rules that is actually enforced on HN is the "no talk about moderation" one. You should instead (per the rules) e-mail info@ycombinator.com with your concerns.

If this topic rises to the front page every time, and is removed from it only when the mods burn it, then it is big enough issue that is really important to many people.

Some can find it ok, many find it annoying, and some others, like me, find it good enough reason to hide, but no amount of moderation will make it disappear.

I don't really care if some modster change my submission title, but if my name is still there and someone googling for it can see it next to something I didn't wrote, then it is a big problem to me.

Re: undefined

#48

Post by tagawa »

Another annoying result of this policy is it makes it hard, if not impossible to search for articles later (that I've not felt strongly enough to save). A few times I've thought "oh wait, I saw that on HN" but have been unable to find the (now changed) title.

Re: undefined

#49

Post by noarchy »

beedogs wrote: post #40

This, along with the equally draconian practice of shadowbanning, really ought to be ceased.

People create threads to discuss hellbans (or shadowbans, or whatever others might prefer) from time to time, too. Hellbanning is a practice that I find almost embarrassing. Browse this site with "show dead" enabled, and you'll find perfectly good comments showing up as dead. You'll also see legit problem posters showing why they should simply be banned, rather than allowed to post dead comments all day.

Re: undefined

#50

Post by nekopa »

beedogs wrote: post #40

This, along with the equally draconian practice of shadowbanning, really ought to be ceased.

Wouldn't outright banning be more draconian (I browse with show dead on, so I can still read some interesting comments from time to time, this wouldn't be the case with outright bans), or are you suggesting no banning at all?
Post reply on HN