3 ms·

> HN's absurd title policy is using a clickbait (and misleading) title chosen by NPR and amplifying it. In general I think the HN title policy works great, and

> HN's absurd title policy is using a clickbait (and misleading) title chosen by NPR and amplifying it. In general I think the HN title policy works great, and I don’t think it’s fair to call it “absurd”. I think HN at its core always was a sort of social experiment revolving around online discussions. The title policy, along with the guidelines, is what makes HN be HN.

loeg 8y ago
The absurd part isn't the convention of being true to the source's headline — which is good, generally — but the dogged persistence in keeping bad and misleading headlines, with extremely rare exception.
- ekianjo 8y ago
  This is not a case of misleading headline. The study endpoints were not met. It is negative.
  - dmix 8y ago
    Agreed. This is turning out to bettet represent commenters preference for controversy and superiority over other comments/submissions than any expose of social media sites or HN's preference for negativity.
  - loeg 8y ago
    In the article, there are 6 paragraphs on the recent negative study results, followed by 15 paragraphs suggesting possible benefits either out of scope of the two recent studies, or potential future avenues of research. NPR's title is certainly accurate for the portion on the two studies, but ~3/4 of the text is not about the negative study results. So, while it's not the most misleading headline ever to grace the orange site, it's not exactly representative of the text either. Since the comment yesterday, the HN headline has changed to "Long-Awaited Study Results on Vitamin D and Fish Oil Supplements," dropping "disappointing."
    - ekianjo 8y ago
      Look, its pretty clear the study did not meet any of the expectations set before it started. Disapointing is totally appropriate. No need to be overly optimistic about every failure out there by cherry picking a few avenues for further research.
- resters 8y ago
  Exactly. Not sure this is an example of that, but what you describe is the major problem with the HN title policy in my opinion.

loeg 8y ago

The absurd part isn't the convention of being true to the source's headline — which is good, generally — but the dogged persistence in keeping bad and misleading headlines, with extremely rare exception.

ekianjo 8y ago
This is not a case of misleading headline. The study endpoints were not met. It is negative.
- dmix 8y ago
  Agreed. This is turning out to bettet represent commenters preference for controversy and superiority over other comments/submissions than any expose of social media sites or HN's preference for negativity.
- loeg 8y ago
  In the article, there are 6 paragraphs on the recent negative study results, followed by 15 paragraphs suggesting possible benefits either out of scope of the two recent studies, or potential future avenues of research. NPR's title is certainly accurate for the portion on the two studies, but ~3/4 of the text is not about the negative study results. So, while it's not the most misleading headline ever to grace the orange site, it's not exactly representative of the text either. Since the comment yesterday, the HN headline has changed to "Long-Awaited Study Results on Vitamin D and Fish Oil Supplements," dropping "disappointing."
  - ekianjo 8y ago
    Look, its pretty clear the study did not meet any of the expectations set before it started. Disapointing is totally appropriate. No need to be overly optimistic about every failure out there by cherry picking a few avenues for further research.
resters 8y ago
Exactly. Not sure this is an example of that, but what you describe is the major problem with the HN title policy in my opinion.