3 ms·
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 suggeste
by 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 agoThe guideline is 'unless the original title is misleading or clickbait'. This one is neither, it's just not explicit.
- robert_tweed 10y agoIs 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 agoNo, 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 agoIf 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.