I appreciate this thoughtful comment, but this is more like DNA than policy. I considered it policy because it has changed. Up until about two years ago, it wa

I appreciate this thoughtful comment, but this is more like DNA than policy. I considered it policy because it has changed. Up until about two years ago, it was okay to provide context in titles as long as they weren't "over-editorialized" - I believe this word was actually used in the guidelines document. And titles are subservient to the content they aim to represent, and need to do so as accurately as possible. Titles are an unavoidable and valuable gateway to content because a reader's decision to read rests upon them. For 2 hours today there was an item just titled "Joxa" on the front page that meant nothing. It was basically clickbait because HN junkies like me had to click on it to work out what it meant. You've since edited it, yet I frequently see titles here being edited the other way. It's not fair to mislead readers with a title about Trello when the article is primarily about Atlassian. What is the best, HN-friendly approach to highlighting more interesting "background" stories, such as this? Would it have been for someone to write their own blog post quoting the original story? This sort of thing has sometimes been shot down here as "blogspam" (although I'm fine with it).