4 ms·

First, I don't think it's linkbait. I see plenty of linkbait on HN, but that is not. That is framing it from an individual's perspective, and it is an opinion p

First, I don't think it's linkbait. I see plenty of linkbait on HN, but that is not. That is framing it from an individual's perspective, and it is an opinion piece on configuration. You're just reading the words without understanding the actual meaning behind them, and what that conveys to the reader when they look at a HN link. This is what linkbait looks like: watch what these this kid can do with a keyboard! / 10 tips for a slimmer you! (you wont believe number 3!) / I saved $3000 a month on hosting with this one trick Yes, I want you to be editing linkbait titles so they are actually descriptive and helpful to users. I am grateful for that thankless service. But this isn't linkbait. and another post you edited wasn't either. And it's REALLY annoying because in both cases it totally changed the meaning. here is what I would suggest: 1) make it clear in the guidelines what linkbait is. I think that is not established. 2) make it clear when a title has been edited in the UI 3) when a title differs from it's original, cite the original, and explain the reason for the change. 4) only change it if you can really do a better job than the original title; or if someone else suggests something better. (better being: more descriptive of the contents). Err on the side of leaving it alone.

dang 11y ago
There are many genres of linkbait. You've mentioned some, but indignant denunciations are another, and so are personal appeals, especially negative ones ("no, you are not foo", "I am not your bar", and so on.) Such formulas are bait because they grab people's attention due to human hard-wiring, not anything interesting. Worse, there's a misattribution-of-arousal effect [1] where the excitement they induce is enough to guarantee upvotes—lots of upvotes. HN moderation tries to counter that effect. We don't get every call right, but I bet you'd be surprised how consistent we are. I'm happy to have conversations about this stuff, but can imagine little more soul-destroying than having to come up with a bureaucratic taxonomy of it and a punctilious rulebook to match. That wouldn't be in HN's spirit anyhow. This place has always been about having a small number of informal principles and interpreting them as best we can. The principles are long established; there's a reason why we change the site guidelines so rarely. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misattribution_of_arousal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misattribution_of_arousal. I originally wrote "mere proximity" but that was the wrong effect.

dang 11y ago

There are many genres of linkbait. You've mentioned some, but indignant denunciations are another, and so are personal appeals, especially negative ones ("no, you are not foo", "I am not your bar", and so on.) Such formulas are bait because they grab people's attention due to human hard-wiring, not anything interesting. Worse, there's a misattribution-of-arousal effect [1] where the excitement they induce is enough to guarantee upvotes—lots of upvotes. HN moderation tries to counter that effect. We don't get every call right, but I bet you'd be surprised how consistent we are. I'm happy to have conversations about this stuff, but can imagine little more soul-destroying than having to come up with a bureaucratic taxonomy of it and a punctilious rulebook to match. That wouldn't be in HN's spirit anyhow. This place has always been about having a small number of informal principles and interpreting them as best we can. The principles are long established; there's a reason why we change the site guidelines so rarely. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misattribution_of_arousal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misattribution_of_arousal. I originally wrote "mere proximity" but that was the wrong effect.