4 ms·

Well also to comply with https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > please use the original title, unl

• mindcrime 11y ago
  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".
  • bosdev 11y ago
    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.
    • mindcrime 11y ago
      The logic is to prevent sensational titles. I think we all understand that. I think we also all understand that there are times when blind adherence to that rule is bloody stupid.
    • scintill76 11y ago
      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...
    • moe 11y ago
      It also eliminates the posters ability to provide the hn audience with a useful title. I very much prefer a "snappy, BuzzFeed-like" heading that tells me what the article is about over a meaningless phrase without context.
  • wtbob 11y ago
    It'd be kinda cool to hack the (fairly stupid) rule with titles like '…' or 'An interesting result.'
    • peterburkimsher 11y ago
      Or Title'); DROP TABLE Articles;--
  • dang 11y ago
    The stupidity 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. Here 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.
    • mindcrime 11y ago
      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.
• Too 11y ago
  Isn't this title misleading? I thought it would be about real time operating systems.
  • dang 11y ago
    Ok, we'll take "In Realtime" out of the title here.