3 ms·

I’m not sure why the title was changed. “On Earth” is in the article’s headline. Some sort of editorializing by HN staff, very strange.

SilasX 9y ago
“On Earth” isn’t very descriptive of what the article is about. The new one is.
dang 9y ago
Taking redundancy and linkbait out of submission titles is standard here. "On Earth" was redundant because where else would the subway track be? And it was hyperbolic, therefore linkbait, which is presumably why they put it there to begin with. That's not editorializing because no particular interpretation is being pushed; we're just being good Strunk-and-Whiters and omitting needless words.
- jcranmer 9y ago
  > "On Earth" was redundant because where else would the subway track be? Without qualifiers, given the provenance of its source material, one could reasonably assume it to mean "in the US". Saying "on Earth" or "in the world" would clarify that it's being compared against all other subway building occurring, even (perhaps especially) against notoriously corrupt countries with artificially high construction costs.
  - tomhoward 9y ago
    ...would clarify that it's being compared against all other subway building occurring Sure, but it's not that kind of article. The title is rhetorical, rather than conveying a demonstrated fact. The article isn't about some study that establishes with certainty that it is actually the most expensive length of track, anywhere in the world, ever, in real terms. Sure it seems plausible given the facts conveyed in the article, but the world is big and the history of rail is fairly long, and the article is not describing an exhaustive comparison with every other railway ever built. So it seems reasonable for dang to decide that the original title is a little too baity for HN.
- pvg 9y ago
  we're just being good Strunk-and-Whiters and omitting needless words. What if the title was 'The Greatest Show on Earth'? The two titles have a slightly different flavour - calling one linkbait is silly (hyperbolic, even!), as is claiming this is being 'good Strunk-and-Whiters' (beside whether 'Strunk and White is really that great a writing standard to begin with). HN editing leans strongly towards desaturating, flavour removal and tone flattening. That's fine, but it's a preference and you should own it as such - it's not some sort of stylistic virtue. Nothing awful would have happened if you just left in the original. You just didn't like it.
look_lookatme 9y ago
I agree. The original title is better and the strange editorializing feels like an overcorrection. Headlines can convey scale without being "clickbait" (I hate that word, it's like Fake News, the definition is relative). The HN title looks like it was run through a programmers/engineers efficiency flowchart and lacks feeling.

SilasX 9y ago

“On Earth” isn’t very descriptive of what the article is about. The new one is.

dang 9y ago

Taking redundancy and linkbait out of submission titles is standard here. "On Earth" was redundant because where else would the subway track be? And it was hyperbolic, therefore linkbait, which is presumably why they put it there to begin with. That's not editorializing because no particular interpretation is being pushed; we're just being good Strunk-and-Whiters and omitting needless words.

jcranmer 9y ago
> "On Earth" was redundant because where else would the subway track be? Without qualifiers, given the provenance of its source material, one could reasonably assume it to mean "in the US". Saying "on Earth" or "in the world" would clarify that it's being compared against all other subway building occurring, even (perhaps especially) against notoriously corrupt countries with artificially high construction costs.
- tomhoward 9y ago
  ...would clarify that it's being compared against all other subway building occurring Sure, but it's not that kind of article. The title is rhetorical, rather than conveying a demonstrated fact. The article isn't about some study that establishes with certainty that it is actually the most expensive length of track, anywhere in the world, ever, in real terms. Sure it seems plausible given the facts conveyed in the article, but the world is big and the history of rail is fairly long, and the article is not describing an exhaustive comparison with every other railway ever built. So it seems reasonable for dang to decide that the original title is a little too baity for HN.
pvg 9y ago
we're just being good Strunk-and-Whiters and omitting needless words. What if the title was 'The Greatest Show on Earth'? The two titles have a slightly different flavour - calling one linkbait is silly (hyperbolic, even!), as is claiming this is being 'good Strunk-and-Whiters' (beside whether 'Strunk and White is really that great a writing standard to begin with). HN editing leans strongly towards desaturating, flavour removal and tone flattening. That's fine, but it's a preference and you should own it as such - it's not some sort of stylistic virtue. Nothing awful would have happened if you just left in the original. You just didn't like it.

look_lookatme 9y ago

I agree. The original title is better and the strange editorializing feels like an overcorrection. Headlines can convey scale without being "clickbait" (I hate that word, it's like Fake News, the definition is relative). The HN title looks like it was run through a programmers/engineers efficiency flowchart and lacks feeling.