Very nice, but the analysis seems to assume that HN rank is determined by the headline and not by the content. (More precisely: for the analysis to give useful

Very nice, but the analysis seems to assume that HN rank is determined by the headline and not by the content. (More precisely: for the analysis to give useful guidance to would-be HN headline writers, it needs not to be the case that content features correlated with headline features make a big difference to HN rank.) My proposal for a good headline according to the numbers in this article: Showing why impossible future controversy survived the problem could hire data. Score: 1.3 (could) + 1.2 (problem) + 1.3 (survived the) + 1.0 (controversy) + 0.9 (impossible) + 0.7 (why ___ future) - 3.3 (11 words) + 2.6 (showing) + 0.5 (hire) + 1.9 (data [END]) = 8.1. For comparison, Why showing the future is essential to acquiring data gets 1.4 (essential) + 0.7 (why ___ future) - 2.7 (9 words) + 2.6 (showing) + 1.7 (acquiring) + 1.9 (data) = 5.6 -- except that it doesn't really get the points for "essential" (not at start) or "why ___ future" (two words in between) or "acquiring" (not in second place, word isn't quite right). Of course my headline has the little drawback of being total nonsense.