4 ms·

Seems like it's less editorializing and more using the title to draw attention to a fact (not an opinion, it's either true or it isn't) about an existing web pa

Seems like it's less editorializing and more using the title to draw attention to a fact (not an opinion, it's either true or it isn't) about an existing web page that might not have been obvious to somebody clicking on a link titled 'ZENIMAX MEDIA ONLINE PRIVACY POLICY' and linking to the same. Is this not allowed? Usually I actually appreciate it when the link goes straight to the primary source in these cases rather than some intermediate news site. edit: maybe I'm looking at an edited title?

dang 6y ago
Cherry-picking one detail and making that the title is actually the leading form of editorializing. Titles are by far the biggest influence on threads, so this is a big deal. On HN, being the submitter of an article doesn't confer any special rights to frame it for everyone else. That's why we ask people to express their opinions in the comments rather than the title. HN readers should make up their own minds about what parts of an article are important. It's true that this policy can't just be applied mechanically and that there's room for nuance. In this case, though, the argument that reverting the title makes the submission a non-story is actually accurate. If the responses in the comments are correct, then indeed it is a non-story.
- gentleman11 6y ago
  To be honest, I started to write a tweet to get around this rule, but it felt childish to approach it in that way and I considered a shallow blog post instead. Next time I'll write the tweet so that the submission can rise to story status like this thread: https://twitter.com/olenskae/status/1283000201993748482 https://twitter.com/olenskae/status/1283000201993748482 or this one: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1282052801347100675 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1282052801347100675
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - caconym_ 6y ago
    This is exactly what I was thinking. It's not editorializing. It's framing a discussion of a certain part of a web page that is not an article by using a title that is a factual statement about said web page. The obvious "workaround" is to publish some low-effort tweet or blog post or whatever, which further muddies the waters re: the other "guideline" which says you should submit primary sources if possible. I get wanting to take a hard line on titles, but I think the "guideline" as written is confusing. The bit about editorializing should be taken out, to make it clear that actual editorializing isn't precisely what's prohibited.
    - dang 6y ago
      I don't think that's right. We have a decade of experience with this, and while there are always corner cases, the HN rule and associated moderation practice works surprisingly well. It creates a relatively level playing field and lets the community consider a submission from first principles. That leads to much more diverse discussion than you get if the title is skewed and primes everybody. If people start making tweets purely to put their spin on an article, HN users will probably notice and flag the post. I mean, who knows. People are welcome to try. We're not trying to stop anyone from expressing their view—but most of the time it's cheap and inflammatory when someone hijacks a title to do so. Title dynamics are fascinating. It used to irritate me that people place so much importance on titles, but eventually I got it. One way of looking at it is, it's a power law: the first 1% of information in (let's call it) an article stream has 90% of the importance. Poof, now it makes sense why titles are so impactful. I suppose that many power laws seem paradoxical when not recognized as such.
      - caconym_ 6y ago
        I'm not making a value judgment or suggesting that you don't know how to run your website and achieve the results you want, in general, nor am I saying titles aren't impactful (including in the way you're worried about). On the contrary, I think HN is moderated well and that its community moderation features and "algorithms" in general are well thought out. I'm simply taking issue with the word "editorialize" in this context, because that's not what this is. There is no "spin" here. This title is solving the same completely innocent problem I'd have if I wanted to submit a link to apple.com after a new $PRODUCT was announced, i.e. that the interesting thing about the linked web page isn't obvious if my title is just 'Apple'. It's fine if HN doesn't want me to title that submission e.g. 'Apple Announces New 24" MacBook Pro', but that can't be because it's a case of editorializing, because it isn't. This does not strike me as substantially different. I feel like you think I'm saying non-neutral editorializing and framing should be allowed in titles, which is absolutely not true.

dang 6y ago

Cherry-picking one detail and making that the title is actually the leading form of editorializing. Titles are by far the biggest influence on threads, so this is a big deal. On HN, being the submitter of an article doesn't confer any special rights to frame it for everyone else. That's why we ask people to express their opinions in the comments rather than the title. HN readers should make up their own minds about what parts of an article are important. It's true that this policy can't just be applied mechanically and that there's room for nuance. In this case, though, the argument that reverting the title makes the submission a non-story is actually accurate. If the responses in the comments are correct, then indeed it is a non-story.

gentleman11 6y ago
To be honest, I started to write a tweet to get around this rule, but it felt childish to approach it in that way and I considered a shallow blog post instead. Next time I'll write the tweet so that the submission can rise to story status like this thread: https://twitter.com/olenskae/status/1283000201993748482 https://twitter.com/olenskae/status/1283000201993748482 or this one: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1282052801347100675 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1282052801347100675
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- caconym_ 6y ago
  This is exactly what I was thinking. It's not editorializing. It's framing a discussion of a certain part of a web page that is not an article by using a title that is a factual statement about said web page. The obvious "workaround" is to publish some low-effort tweet or blog post or whatever, which further muddies the waters re: the other "guideline" which says you should submit primary sources if possible. I get wanting to take a hard line on titles, but I think the "guideline" as written is confusing. The bit about editorializing should be taken out, to make it clear that actual editorializing isn't precisely what's prohibited.
  - dang 6y ago
    I don't think that's right. We have a decade of experience with this, and while there are always corner cases, the HN rule and associated moderation practice works surprisingly well. It creates a relatively level playing field and lets the community consider a submission from first principles. That leads to much more diverse discussion than you get if the title is skewed and primes everybody. If people start making tweets purely to put their spin on an article, HN users will probably notice and flag the post. I mean, who knows. People are welcome to try. We're not trying to stop anyone from expressing their view—but most of the time it's cheap and inflammatory when someone hijacks a title to do so. Title dynamics are fascinating. It used to irritate me that people place so much importance on titles, but eventually I got it. One way of looking at it is, it's a power law: the first 1% of information in (let's call it) an article stream has 90% of the importance. Poof, now it makes sense why titles are so impactful. I suppose that many power laws seem paradoxical when not recognized as such.
    - caconym_ 6y ago
      I'm not making a value judgment or suggesting that you don't know how to run your website and achieve the results you want, in general, nor am I saying titles aren't impactful (including in the way you're worried about). On the contrary, I think HN is moderated well and that its community moderation features and "algorithms" in general are well thought out. I'm simply taking issue with the word "editorialize" in this context, because that's not what this is. There is no "spin" here. This title is solving the same completely innocent problem I'd have if I wanted to submit a link to apple.com after a new $PRODUCT was announced, i.e. that the interesting thing about the linked web page isn't obvious if my title is just 'Apple'. It's fine if HN doesn't want me to title that submission e.g. 'Apple Announces New 24" MacBook Pro', but that can't be because it's a case of editorializing, because it isn't. This does not strike me as substantially different. I feel like you think I'm saying non-neutral editorializing and framing should be allowed in titles, which is absolutely not true.