4 ms·

In this case, a magazine of note specifically chose to label this individual "the Best War Reporter in a Generation". That's not a link-bait superlative; it's

In this case, a magazine of note specifically chose to label this individual "the Best War Reporter in a Generation". That's not a link-bait superlative; it's a statement of judgement relevant to the story. "Why a War Reporter Had to Suddenly Stop" is a very different headline for a very different story.

dang 11y ago
On HN we don't simply accept what a "magazine of note" decides to tell us in its headline. Readers here can make up their own minds.
- mfoy_ 11y ago
  I thought on HN we didn't editorialize titles. (Unless it's for character count restrictions)
  - dang 11y ago
    The HN guideline is "Please use the original title unless it is misleading or linkbait." Does that answer your question?
    - mfoy_ 11y ago
      Fair enough, although I disagree that the title is link-bait.
    - theoh 11y ago
      One way to flag titles that you consider to be link bait would be to put quotation marks around them, as in "one weird trick that..." The proliferation of quotation marks would probably give the impression of a somewhat sarcastic and superior editorial policy, but in all seriousness, software people are all about detailed quotation policies, literal references where appropriate, changelogs, version control, etc. HN's stripped-down aesthetic is a bit Procrustean.
- zrail 11y ago
  In general, sure. In this instance, this is a bad policy decision. The title of the article is substantiative. It only seems like link bait at the shallowest possible reading level.
- wdewind 11y ago
  > On HN we don't simply accept what a "magazine of note" decides to tell us in its headline. > Readers here can make up their own minds. These two sentences seem in conflict to me...
  - dang 11y ago
    Accurate, neutral titles are what's best for readers to make up their own minds. Someone has to make the call about what an accurate, neutral title is, though—otherwise there would be a deadlock. In practice, it's not all that arbitrary—not algorithmic, but not wildly subjective either. We get it wrong sometimes, but the quality of the front page is vastly higher with this practice than it would be without it. You may also have noticed that when people complain about titles, in nearly every case we accommodate their complaints. I'm not doing that this time because the present case seems clear to me and worth defending on principle. But that's rare. Edit: we did change the title based on this suggestion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10235921 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10235921. It's really helpful when users suggest better titles! I wish it happened more often.
    - wdewind 11y ago
      As always thanks for a thoughtful reply. I'll reiterate somethings I've mentioned to you before: > Accurate, neutral titles are what's best for readers to make up their own minds. Not to be pedantic, but I think you are using the word accurate when you mean precise. Accuracy implies a consistent lens. My concern is that by striving for higher precision titles we lose a consistency that actually has less bias long term. > In practice, it's not all that arbitrary—not algorithmic, but not wildly subjective either. This is something that's been said over and over again to a community that is extremely focused on empirical evidence. It would be not only great to have a better understanding of how this works, it would be extremely interesting to the community. > You may also have noticed that when people complain about titles, in nearly every case we accommodate their complaints. I have noticed that, thank you. > I'm not doing that this time because the present case seems clear to me and worth defending on principle. But that's rare. Again, this is a group that responds very well to evidence based argument, and so it's kind of lame to hear that these decisions are made unilaterally based on your principles. I mentioned bias above. Systems that are based on one person making decisions based on their principles are by definition biased. Maybe this is fine, but in that case it would be nice if it was made more clear to the community. Anyway, don't feel obligated to respond to this, it's just feedback. I understand you're doing the best you can to solve a really hard problem, and I do appreciate the work you put in. It's clear you are thoughtful and working hard, but more transparency would be greatly appreciated.
paganel 11y ago
I didn't know said war reporter's name, but, granted, I don't usually read long war-related stories from the likes of the NYTimes or Esquire (I find them overly biased). Even so, calling him the "best war reporter in a generation" is a bit of an over-statement. He may be very talented, but as far as I know he didn't put online anything like guys like this did: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rorjogZdwM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rorjogZdwM (at 2:51 you can hear bullets flying just a couple of meters above him, microphone still in hand). Granted, what these guys in Syria do is not very smart, safety wise (no helmets, no anything), but they're doing war reporting by actually risking their lives almost every day. Also, they're not "Westerners" and shout "Allah akbar", so that may have something to say about their job not being recognized as "the best in a generation".
- btilly 11y ago
  What makes a war reporter good is not that they do crazy shit, it is that they do a good job of reporting important stuff. Unraveling the supply chains behind the bombs is an example of reporting important stuff.

dang 11y ago

On HN we don't simply accept what a "magazine of note" decides to tell us in its headline. Readers here can make up their own minds.

mfoy_ 11y ago
I thought on HN we didn't editorialize titles. (Unless it's for character count restrictions)
- dang 11y ago
  The HN guideline is "Please use the original title unless it is misleading or linkbait." Does that answer your question?
  - mfoy_ 11y ago
    Fair enough, although I disagree that the title is link-bait.
  - theoh 11y ago
    One way to flag titles that you consider to be link bait would be to put quotation marks around them, as in "one weird trick that..." The proliferation of quotation marks would probably give the impression of a somewhat sarcastic and superior editorial policy, but in all seriousness, software people are all about detailed quotation policies, literal references where appropriate, changelogs, version control, etc. HN's stripped-down aesthetic is a bit Procrustean.
zrail 11y ago
In general, sure. In this instance, this is a bad policy decision. The title of the article is substantiative. It only seems like link bait at the shallowest possible reading level.
wdewind 11y ago
> On HN we don't simply accept what a "magazine of note" decides to tell us in its headline. > Readers here can make up their own minds. These two sentences seem in conflict to me...
- dang 11y ago
  Accurate, neutral titles are what's best for readers to make up their own minds. Someone has to make the call about what an accurate, neutral title is, though—otherwise there would be a deadlock. In practice, it's not all that arbitrary—not algorithmic, but not wildly subjective either. We get it wrong sometimes, but the quality of the front page is vastly higher with this practice than it would be without it. You may also have noticed that when people complain about titles, in nearly every case we accommodate their complaints. I'm not doing that this time because the present case seems clear to me and worth defending on principle. But that's rare. Edit: we did change the title based on this suggestion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10235921 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10235921. It's really helpful when users suggest better titles! I wish it happened more often.
  - wdewind 11y ago
    As always thanks for a thoughtful reply. I'll reiterate somethings I've mentioned to you before: > Accurate, neutral titles are what's best for readers to make up their own minds. Not to be pedantic, but I think you are using the word accurate when you mean precise. Accuracy implies a consistent lens. My concern is that by striving for higher precision titles we lose a consistency that actually has less bias long term. > In practice, it's not all that arbitrary—not algorithmic, but not wildly subjective either. This is something that's been said over and over again to a community that is extremely focused on empirical evidence. It would be not only great to have a better understanding of how this works, it would be extremely interesting to the community. > You may also have noticed that when people complain about titles, in nearly every case we accommodate their complaints. I have noticed that, thank you. > I'm not doing that this time because the present case seems clear to me and worth defending on principle. But that's rare. Again, this is a group that responds very well to evidence based argument, and so it's kind of lame to hear that these decisions are made unilaterally based on your principles. I mentioned bias above. Systems that are based on one person making decisions based on their principles are by definition biased. Maybe this is fine, but in that case it would be nice if it was made more clear to the community. Anyway, don't feel obligated to respond to this, it's just feedback. I understand you're doing the best you can to solve a really hard problem, and I do appreciate the work you put in. It's clear you are thoughtful and working hard, but more transparency would be greatly appreciated.

paganel 11y ago

I didn't know said war reporter's name, but, granted, I don't usually read long war-related stories from the likes of the NYTimes or Esquire (I find them overly biased). Even so, calling him the "best war reporter in a generation" is a bit of an over-statement. He may be very talented, but as far as I know he didn't put online anything like guys like this did: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rorjogZdwM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rorjogZdwM (at 2:51 you can hear bullets flying just a couple of meters above him, microphone still in hand). Granted, what these guys in Syria do is not very smart, safety wise (no helmets, no anything), but they're doing war reporting by actually risking their lives almost every day. Also, they're not "Westerners" and shout "Allah akbar", so that may have something to say about their job not being recognized as "the best in a generation".

btilly 11y ago
What makes a war reporter good is not that they do crazy shit, it is that they do a good job of reporting important stuff. Unraveling the supply chains behind the bombs is an example of reporting important stuff.