3 ms·

@HN @dang why the post de-rename? When submitting, I intentionally editorialized the title from something unclear out of mozilla's blog context ("Contextual Id

@HN @dang why the post de-rename? When submitting, I intentionally editorialized the title from something unclear out of mozilla's blog context ("Contextual Identities on the Web") to a more explicit title that speaks by itself ("Firefox 50 nightly new feature: Contextual Identities"). Isn't this considered valuable here?

dfc 10y ago
I cant speak for dang but the guidelines make it pretty clear that you should use the original title: ishttps://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- ronjouch 10y ago
  Alright, thanks for pointing to them. - This guideline feels a wee bit sad, because editorializing can be valuable (a title might be crystal clear in context but nonsensical once pulled out of it). - But I understand how we generally don't want it as it might lead to linkbaiting and misrepresenting the original title.
  - k__ 10y ago
    Also, didn't they change some titels to less click-baity titles in the past?
    - spiderfarmer 10y ago
      Still happens, I saw it happen the day before yesterday. I kind of like the fact that the title on HN is specific and to the point.
rcthompson 10y ago
Note that the domain of the link is displayed next to the title, and helps to provide context in many cases, including this one.
- ronjouch 10y ago
  I know, but in some cases like this one, I feel it's not enough. Had I not been subscribed to Mozilla's RSS feed, I personally would have skipped a "Contextual Identities on the Web (mozilla.org)" post on HN, because the vagueness would have made me mentally flag it as not time-worthwhile. Contrarily, adding a few non-likbaitish words providing context (here, mentioning we're talking about a new feature in Firefox testable in Nightly, which is what my rename did), it becomes much more precise, less arbitrarily discard-able, thus interesting for certain people, including me. But again, I understand the main reason the guidelines proscribe the practice: because it's a slippery slope to linkbait and incorrect reformulations.

dfc 10y ago

I cant speak for dang but the guidelines make it pretty clear that you should use the original title: ishttps://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

ronjouch 10y ago
Alright, thanks for pointing to them. - This guideline feels a wee bit sad, because editorializing can be valuable (a title might be crystal clear in context but nonsensical once pulled out of it). - But I understand how we generally don't want it as it might lead to linkbaiting and misrepresenting the original title.
- k__ 10y ago
  Also, didn't they change some titels to less click-baity titles in the past?
  - spiderfarmer 10y ago
    Still happens, I saw it happen the day before yesterday. I kind of like the fact that the title on HN is specific and to the point.

rcthompson 10y ago

Note that the domain of the link is displayed next to the title, and helps to provide context in many cases, including this one.

ronjouch 10y ago
I know, but in some cases like this one, I feel it's not enough. Had I not been subscribed to Mozilla's RSS feed, I personally would have skipped a "Contextual Identities on the Web (mozilla.org)" post on HN, because the vagueness would have made me mentally flag it as not time-worthwhile. Contrarily, adding a few non-likbaitish words providing context (here, mentioning we're talking about a new feature in Firefox testable in Nightly, which is what my rename did), it becomes much more precise, less arbitrarily discard-able, thus interesting for certain people, including me. But again, I understand the main reason the guidelines proscribe the practice: because it's a slippery slope to linkbait and incorrect reformulations.