HN guidelines regarding titles are to include the article's original title if it's not clickbaity or misleading and to omit the website's name from the title be

HN guidelines regarding titles are to include the article's original title if it's not clickbaity or misleading and to omit the website's name from the title because it appears on the domain name next to it. Both guidelines seems to not have been followed. I agree that OP did it to differentiate this response article from the original one but this was the first time the article was posted on HN so we don't really know if it needed to be differentiated (i.e. if it had been posted without getting to the frontpage then it would've been safe to assume the necessity of a different title). Either ways I think "A response to" instead of "Ayende on" would've done the same job without risking falling into any of the pitfalls you mentioned. But enough nitpicking, the article in itself is interesting.