6 ms·

Can we get the title changed? The current title does not provide me with enough information to know what the article is about. How about, "Doctor diagnosed with

Can we get the title changed? The current title does not provide me with enough information to know what the article is about. How about, "Doctor diagnosed with rare Castleman disease leads charge for cure"?

dang 10y ago
I hear you, but not all titles on HN have to be self-explanatory. It's good for readers to have to work a little sometimes.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  How does this further the aims of HN?
  - sn9 10y ago
    By forcing people to respond to or otherwise discuss the contents of the article instead of the headline.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - theoh 10y ago
      Actually it seems like dang was making a moralistic point that I'm not sure about. Sometimes a suggestive, catchy but perhaps uninformative title is linkbait (and should be replaced), but sometimes such a title is not "bait" but instead something we just have to accept as given? Hmmm.
      - tomhoward 10y ago
        There's a difference between piquing curiosity and exploiting emotions. Of course there's a grey area, and this story may be closer to the line than usual, but wherever the line is, it's fair enough for dang to judge that this title is on the right side of it. Personally I don't see how the title misrepresents the content in the article, or tricks anyone into reading something they'd be better off not to have read.
    - jessriedel 10y ago
      That would suggest removing all titles.
    - baddox 10y ago
      There is delightful irony in that statement in this comment thread.
  - dang 10y ago
    Good question! I've posted about this from time to time. Here are some links if you care: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10077754 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10077754 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11979596 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11979596 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10161193 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10161193 https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix&page=0&query=by:dang%20%22work%20a%20little%22 https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment&query=by:dang%20reflexive%20slow https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=... The bottom line is that occasionally having to stop and work a little acts as a speed bump that slows down the usual internet reflexes, making reflective responses a bit more likely. Reflective responses are what we're hoping for here. If you introspect a bit you can catch yourself getting irritably impatient at having to take 5 seconds rather than half a second to process something on the internet. That's the reflex I'm talking about. The problem is that in that mode our responses are automatic, therefore predictable, therefore uninteresting.
    - jessriedel 10y ago
      I read the first three comments and they all say roughly the same thing. But I can't figure why you think this functions as you hypothesize. Do you have data? Why not move the buttons on HN to random parts of the page? Or randomize the article titles every time you reload HN, so you're never sure whether you've already read an article? Or swap one comment between threads to keep people on their toes? Wouldn't those all be equally plausible ways to get people to read things more carefully by sacrificing usability? Your other comments suggest that you would be against tl;dr's, which outside the internet are known as "abstracts", and (like descriptive titles) are known to be highly useful.
- paulcole 10y ago
  Yeah it is refreshing to read an article and find out the headline was misleading. I really enjoyed putting that effort in.
  - nickpeterson 10y ago
    HN commenters hate when people question the purpose of an article. In fact, even suggesting that HN should allow a short description is considered blasphemy. Also people on HN have no sense of humor because 95% of them are on the spectrum.
    - marviel 10y ago
      Some broad strokes there...
      - nickpeterson 10y ago
        Sorry, life has made me bitter.
        striking 10y ago
        It amuses me that you complain about people taking things too seriously, being humorless, when that's exactly what you did... My life hasn't been the easiest either, but at least I don't rely on that as an excuse. There's plenty of positivity out there, as long as you're willing to seek it out. Have a nice day, hope you find peace.
        nickpeterson 10y ago
        I'm confused, did you not think the response was a joke?
- robert_tweed 10y ago
  This particular title reeks of clickbait though. Have to strongly disagree with your defence of it, especially in the light of a good alternative being suggested.
  - pvg 10y ago
    The guideline is 'unless the original title is misleading or clickbait'. This one is neither, it's just not explicit.
    - robert_tweed 10y ago
      Is it only clickbait if factually incorrect? Wouldn't that make the term redundant given that such a title would also be misleading? Note that we're currently engaged in an unhelpful meta-discussion about whether or not the title is clickbait, which IMO is exactly what the guidelines are designed to prevent. While I didn't say so earlier, I largely object to the needlessly inflammatory word "stumped" which perpetuates the meme that patients frequently know better than doctors. This case is an interesting exception, not the rule. There's a debate to be had about the fact people do indeed know their own case history than their often time-starved doctors, but whether or not the article has merit, the title is a distraction.
      - pvg 10y ago
        No, it's just not clickbait. I'm not sure how the meta-thing suggests that it is. It's just a title. I mean, read these titles http://www.paulgraham.com/articles.html http://www.paulgraham.com/articles.html
  - dang 10y ago
    If it helps, we agree on the 'law' that clickbait titles need to be changed (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), just not on the facts of this case. The NYT title doesn't seem to me to reek of clickbait, though I grant you there's a touch of it.

dang 10y ago

I hear you, but not all titles on HN have to be self-explanatory. It's good for readers to have to work a little sometimes.

jessriedel 10y ago
How does this further the aims of HN?
- sn9 10y ago
  By forcing people to respond to or otherwise discuss the contents of the article instead of the headline.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - theoh 10y ago
    Actually it seems like dang was making a moralistic point that I'm not sure about. Sometimes a suggestive, catchy but perhaps uninformative title is linkbait (and should be replaced), but sometimes such a title is not "bait" but instead something we just have to accept as given? Hmmm.
    - tomhoward 10y ago
      There's a difference between piquing curiosity and exploiting emotions. Of course there's a grey area, and this story may be closer to the line than usual, but wherever the line is, it's fair enough for dang to judge that this title is on the right side of it. Personally I don't see how the title misrepresents the content in the article, or tricks anyone into reading something they'd be better off not to have read.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    That would suggest removing all titles.
  - baddox 10y ago
    There is delightful irony in that statement in this comment thread.
- dang 10y ago
  Good question! I've posted about this from time to time. Here are some links if you care: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10077754 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10077754 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11979596 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11979596 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10161193 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10161193 https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix&page=0&query=by:dang%20%22work%20a%20little%22 https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment&query=by:dang%20reflexive%20slow https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=... The bottom line is that occasionally having to stop and work a little acts as a speed bump that slows down the usual internet reflexes, making reflective responses a bit more likely. Reflective responses are what we're hoping for here. If you introspect a bit you can catch yourself getting irritably impatient at having to take 5 seconds rather than half a second to process something on the internet. That's the reflex I'm talking about. The problem is that in that mode our responses are automatic, therefore predictable, therefore uninteresting.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    I read the first three comments and they all say roughly the same thing. But I can't figure why you think this functions as you hypothesize. Do you have data? Why not move the buttons on HN to random parts of the page? Or randomize the article titles every time you reload HN, so you're never sure whether you've already read an article? Or swap one comment between threads to keep people on their toes? Wouldn't those all be equally plausible ways to get people to read things more carefully by sacrificing usability? Your other comments suggest that you would be against tl;dr's, which outside the internet are known as "abstracts", and (like descriptive titles) are known to be highly useful.
paulcole 10y ago
Yeah it is refreshing to read an article and find out the headline was misleading. I really enjoyed putting that effort in.
- nickpeterson 10y ago
  HN commenters hate when people question the purpose of an article. In fact, even suggesting that HN should allow a short description is considered blasphemy. Also people on HN have no sense of humor because 95% of them are on the spectrum.
  - marviel 10y ago
    Some broad strokes there...
    - nickpeterson 10y ago
      Sorry, life has made me bitter.
      - striking 10y ago
        It amuses me that you complain about people taking things too seriously, being humorless, when that's exactly what you did... My life hasn't been the easiest either, but at least I don't rely on that as an excuse. There's plenty of positivity out there, as long as you're willing to seek it out. Have a nice day, hope you find peace.
        nickpeterson 10y ago
        I'm confused, did you not think the response was a joke?
robert_tweed 10y ago
This particular title reeks of clickbait though. Have to strongly disagree with your defence of it, especially in the light of a good alternative being suggested.
- pvg 10y ago
  The guideline is 'unless the original title is misleading or clickbait'. This one is neither, it's just not explicit.
  - robert_tweed 10y ago
    Is it only clickbait if factually incorrect? Wouldn't that make the term redundant given that such a title would also be misleading? Note that we're currently engaged in an unhelpful meta-discussion about whether or not the title is clickbait, which IMO is exactly what the guidelines are designed to prevent. While I didn't say so earlier, I largely object to the needlessly inflammatory word "stumped" which perpetuates the meme that patients frequently know better than doctors. This case is an interesting exception, not the rule. There's a debate to be had about the fact people do indeed know their own case history than their often time-starved doctors, but whether or not the article has merit, the title is a distraction.
    - pvg 10y ago
      No, it's just not clickbait. I'm not sure how the meta-thing suggests that it is. It's just a title. I mean, read these titles http://www.paulgraham.com/articles.html http://www.paulgraham.com/articles.html
- dang 10y ago
  If it helps, we agree on the 'law' that clickbait titles need to be changed (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), just not on the facts of this case. The NYT title doesn't seem to me to reek of clickbait, though I grant you there's a touch of it.