4 ms·
You have the answer here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21617317 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21617317 "[...] The big no-no is extracting some
by kemyd 7y ago
You have the answer here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21617317 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21617317
"[...] The big no-no is extracting some interesting fact from inside the article and using it as the title"
- Tenoke 7y agoIronically, that's exactly what dang often does, including today.
- dang 7y agoOften? That doesn't seem true to me. Can you give examples?
- mft_ 7y agoThanks - makes sense from a ‘they’re following the rules perspective’, but less so from a ‘enable discovery and subsequent interesting discussion’ perspective. I wonder whether a subtitle giving an editorialised “so what” would help... but that would of course mean twice as much to moderate, and twice as much for people to complain about...
- egeozcan 7y agoInteresting, I had forgotten about this rule. Doesn't that encourage blogspam links instead of the source with context?