3 ms·

The HN submission guidelines include the following rule: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait." The original headline is a bit

by teach 8y ago

The HN submission guidelines include the following rule: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait." The original headline is a bit sensational/clickbaity. That's a judgment call in this case, IMO, but I suspect that's why the title was changed.

astro_robot 8y ago
I wish click bait was more well defined. In this case, I feel the original title summarizes the entire claim made in the article. Using the title "Claims made by..." sounds like it'll be an article summarizing the claims made by AI and Watson, rather than a push back on those claims.
- dqpb 8y ago
  I'll go ahead and define clickbait using a simplified and possibly anthropomorphized version of information theory. First: - The more improbable a message is, the more information it contains, assuming the message is true - If the message is untrue it contains no information - If a message is already known by everyone it contains no information Not Clickbait: If a message is surprising (seemingly unlikely or previously unknown), and true, then it contains high information, and will be very likely to be clicked. This is not just a good thing, it's the most optimal thing! Clickbait: If a message is surprising and untrue, it will also very likely be clicked if the user cannot easily determine that the message is untrue. The user may then be disappointed when they discover the message actually contained no information because it was false. Incidentally, false messages will always have a high probability of appearing to be high information messages, because they will often appear to have the least likelihood. Incidentally, this is (in my opinion) the theoretical problem of fake news. It will always appear to be high information to those unable to determine if it's true or false. In other words, it will appear to be of the highest value, when really it has no value (or even negative value if you look at the system level rather than just information level).
GuiA 8y ago
I disagree, and do not believe the title is linkbaity/sensational at all, and find it problematic that the title was changed. It is an accurate description of the author’s position, which is that the claims made by IBM are fraudulent. Holding a position isn’t linkbaity or sensationalism. A linkbaity or sensational title would have been “you won’t believe what IBM claims”.
- itp 8y ago
  Exactly this. I've been uncomfortable with this trend for a while now, where everything gets labeled "clickbait" and there's a thread of resentment if an article does anything other than lay out dry facts as efficiently as possible. The pendulum has swung too far. This wasn't clickbait, it was a fair and accurate summary of the full piece. Flag the entire post if you think it's inherently inflammatory, downvote, ban it if you're an admin, but this title had no business being edited.
  - dwringer 8y ago
    Perhaps a more NPOV [neutral point-of-view] way to reframe the original would be "Claims made by IBM about Watson and AI considered fraudulent" - thus it is no longer advertising an opinion as implicitly true in the headline, but simply representing the article for what it is.
itp 8y ago
I'm sure you're right about the why, but I don't believe this was a judgement call, I believe it was wrong. The current headline is misleading (if the purpose of a headline is to provide information about the contents of the full post). Questions about whether the entire article is misleading should be addressed via discussion in the comments or, if it's egregiously wrong, flagged/downvoted/removed.
ekianjo 8y ago
> The original headline is a bit sensational/clickbaity. Oh, so having an actual opinion about something is clickbaity now?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

by teach 8y ago

astro_robot 8y ago

I wish click bait was more well defined. In this case, I feel the original title summarizes the entire claim made in the article. Using the title "Claims made by..." sounds like it'll be an article summarizing the claims made by AI and Watson, rather than a push back on those claims.

dqpb 8y ago
I'll go ahead and define clickbait using a simplified and possibly anthropomorphized version of information theory. First: - The more improbable a message is, the more information it contains, assuming the message is true - If the message is untrue it contains no information - If a message is already known by everyone it contains no information Not Clickbait: If a message is surprising (seemingly unlikely or previously unknown), and true, then it contains high information, and will be very likely to be clicked. This is not just a good thing, it's the most optimal thing! Clickbait: If a message is surprising and untrue, it will also very likely be clicked if the user cannot easily determine that the message is untrue. The user may then be disappointed when they discover the message actually contained no information because it was false. Incidentally, false messages will always have a high probability of appearing to be high information messages, because they will often appear to have the least likelihood. Incidentally, this is (in my opinion) the theoretical problem of fake news. It will always appear to be high information to those unable to determine if it's true or false. In other words, it will appear to be of the highest value, when really it has no value (or even negative value if you look at the system level rather than just information level).

GuiA 8y ago

I disagree, and do not believe the title is linkbaity/sensational at all, and find it problematic that the title was changed. It is an accurate description of the author’s position, which is that the claims made by IBM are fraudulent. Holding a position isn’t linkbaity or sensationalism. A linkbaity or sensational title would have been “you won’t believe what IBM claims”.

itp 8y ago
Exactly this. I've been uncomfortable with this trend for a while now, where everything gets labeled "clickbait" and there's a thread of resentment if an article does anything other than lay out dry facts as efficiently as possible. The pendulum has swung too far. This wasn't clickbait, it was a fair and accurate summary of the full piece. Flag the entire post if you think it's inherently inflammatory, downvote, ban it if you're an admin, but this title had no business being edited.
- dwringer 8y ago
  Perhaps a more NPOV [neutral point-of-view] way to reframe the original would be "Claims made by IBM about Watson and AI considered fraudulent" - thus it is no longer advertising an opinion as implicitly true in the headline, but simply representing the article for what it is.

itp 8y ago

I'm sure you're right about the why, but I don't believe this was a judgement call, I believe it was wrong. The current headline is misleading (if the purpose of a headline is to provide information about the contents of the full post). Questions about whether the entire article is misleading should be addressed via discussion in the comments or, if it's egregiously wrong, flagged/downvoted/removed.

ekianjo 8y ago

> The original headline is a bit sensational/clickbaity. Oh, so having an actual opinion about something is clickbaity now?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]