4 ms·
I think this may be one of those situations where the outcome is odious to some even though no individual action was itself odious. The author of the blog post
by raiph 11y ago
I think this may be one of those situations where the outcome is odious to some even though no individual action was itself odious.
The author of the blog post has said she* wrote the title to mimic the sort of bro-ish thing she was hearing others say about Perl 6. Presumably you can at least see, if you've read the post, how she disagrees with the view expressed in the title?
Second, she did not post it here at HN, bane did. I don't think it's clear she* (bane) was at fault for keeping the original title. Following several recommendations that don't apply afaict, HN's explicit guideline about titles is "please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait".
* I've used "she" as a generic pronoun because I have no idea what the preferred gender identity is of the two folk involved and to add a little spice for thought.
- kafkaesq 11y agoMy take is if you post something with an obnoxious, click-baity title... then you pretty much need to take responsibility for the gut-level impressions, and general bad, lingering aftertaste that title invokes in people. In particular: you can expect them to read your 1,000-word post to the end, and and attempt to divine what your hidden intentions were in choosing that title. And my other take is that not every article out there needs to be cross-posted; and putting a gratuitously offensive title at the top is a perfect way of indicating to people that you don't think really merits sharing. If someone is smart enough to tease out the performance nuances of an as insanely overcomplicated engineering contraption as Perl 6... then surely they're smart enough to think of a better article title.