4 ms·

I'm not sure why the HN admins now have such a propensity for changing informative article titles that contain actual numbers into vague click-bait original tit

I'm not sure why the HN admins now have such a propensity for changing informative article titles that contain actual numbers into vague click-bait original titles. I've been here for over ten years, and only noticed it happening over the past few months. The title I submitted contains information: "Human fertility rates have fallen nearly 50% since 1950". The weak original title ("'Remarkable' decline in fertility rates") contains no information.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
stochastic_monk 8y ago
I agree with your arguments. I’m not sure on enforcement, but it does state that one should post the original title in the guidelines. This may be worth a larger discussion elsewhere.
- maxwell 8y ago
  "Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
user5994461 8y ago
Your title contains no information, unless one knows the rate in 1950. By some metrics, it's more clickbait than the original title.
- baud147258 8y ago
  > Your title contains no information The original title told how the rate has changed since 1950 (minus 50%), which is a piece of information.
- shakestheclown 8y ago
  By which metrics?
hammock 8y ago
@dang
rosslazer 8y ago
It would be cool to build a clickbait classifier. Anyone interested?
dang 8y ago
Nothing has changed. The site guideline has been this way for years: Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait. (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) You broke the guideline so we reverted the title. That's standard moderation. Perhaps you noticed it more because it was your submission? When people extrapolate figures the way you did when rewriting a title, they often (usually?) get it wrong and make a claim that isn't supported by the article, or emphasize something that the article doesn't emphasize. On HN we try to let the content speak for itself. If you want to say what you think is important about an article, that's great, but you should do it in the comments, on a level playing field with other users. Other users pointed out a legit reason not to use the article title: "fertility rate" is misleading. In that case we look for an alternative in the article itself. The subtitle was usable; that's common. If not, you can look for a good phrase in the opening paragraph, or possibly a photo caption. Occasionally it's necessary to dig something out of the middle of the text. But there's almost always an accurate and neutral phrase somewhere in the content that can serve as a title. When we change a title on HN, that's our search path for finding a different one. We avoid making up our own language as much as possible.
- maxwell 8y ago
  Thanks for replying Dan. The original title, specifically the inclusion of 'Remarkable' instead of giving the numbers/terms of the article, seemed like click-bait to me. This is the relevant part of the article: > In 1950, women were having an average of 4.7 children in their lifetime. The fertility rate all but halved to 2.4 children per woman by last year.
  - Nomentatus 8y ago
    "Remarkable" does not mean extraordinary, it means worth remarking upon. Hence the old saw in Philosophy: "No remark without remarkableness." There is a connotation of surprise, in addition, but surely surprise is warranted. I am very willing to believe that there's some difference in usage on different sides of the Atlantic, but doubt that difference is extreme, in fact it may not even be remarkable. Note that the response you got was that others aren't reliable when extracting statistics from articles, so while you may be very reliable in this way, they can't trust users to do this and have had to draw a line. I too hate clickbait (unless it's a headline I wrote, of course) but "remarkable" doesn't trigger me.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

stochastic_monk 8y ago

I agree with your arguments. I’m not sure on enforcement, but it does state that one should post the original title in the guidelines. This may be worth a larger discussion elsewhere.

maxwell 8y ago
"Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

user5994461 8y ago

Your title contains no information, unless one knows the rate in 1950. By some metrics, it's more clickbait than the original title.

baud147258 8y ago
> Your title contains no information The original title told how the rate has changed since 1950 (minus 50%), which is a piece of information.
shakestheclown 8y ago
By which metrics?

hammock 8y ago

@dang

rosslazer 8y ago

It would be cool to build a clickbait classifier. Anyone interested?

dang 8y ago

Nothing has changed. The site guideline has been this way for years: Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait. (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) You broke the guideline so we reverted the title. That's standard moderation. Perhaps you noticed it more because it was your submission? When people extrapolate figures the way you did when rewriting a title, they often (usually?) get it wrong and make a claim that isn't supported by the article, or emphasize something that the article doesn't emphasize. On HN we try to let the content speak for itself. If you want to say what you think is important about an article, that's great, but you should do it in the comments, on a level playing field with other users. Other users pointed out a legit reason not to use the article title: "fertility rate" is misleading. In that case we look for an alternative in the article itself. The subtitle was usable; that's common. If not, you can look for a good phrase in the opening paragraph, or possibly a photo caption. Occasionally it's necessary to dig something out of the middle of the text. But there's almost always an accurate and neutral phrase somewhere in the content that can serve as a title. When we change a title on HN, that's our search path for finding a different one. We avoid making up our own language as much as possible.

maxwell 8y ago
Thanks for replying Dan. The original title, specifically the inclusion of 'Remarkable' instead of giving the numbers/terms of the article, seemed like click-bait to me. This is the relevant part of the article: > In 1950, women were having an average of 4.7 children in their lifetime. The fertility rate all but halved to 2.4 children per woman by last year.
- Nomentatus 8y ago
  "Remarkable" does not mean extraordinary, it means worth remarking upon. Hence the old saw in Philosophy: "No remark without remarkableness." There is a connotation of surprise, in addition, but surely surprise is warranted. I am very willing to believe that there's some difference in usage on different sides of the Atlantic, but doubt that difference is extreme, in fact it may not even be remarkable. Note that the response you got was that others aren't reliable when extracting statistics from articles, so while you may be very reliable in this way, they can't trust users to do this and have had to draw a line. I too hate clickbait (unless it's a headline I wrote, of course) but "remarkable" doesn't trigger me.