5 ms·

Rather, I found that to be the most relevant point That's what editorializing is. You can point out the thing you found salient in a comment, you can find anot

by pvg 6y ago

Rather, I found that to be the most relevant point That's what editorializing is. You can point out the thing you found salient in a comment, you can find another piece that better represents the interesting thing, etc. You can't make up the title, though.

da_big_ghey 6y ago
Without "making up" a headline, and were I to have used the original headline of "What is Really New in Fintech", I would not have considered this a useful submission due to the complete lack of information conveyed by the headline. The article contained important info but the headline was meaningless, so I did my best to come up with something. I guess my first attempt fell short.
anothernewdude 6y ago
No, you have to allow the source to do the editorializing, because that's so much better.
dredmorbius 6y ago
The HN submission guidelines do allow for changes in title, though usually it's to combat undue sensationalism. Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html In this case, the problem is an excess of bureaucratese, euphemism, jargon, and vagueness. As Orwell wrote in "Politics and the English Language" on five badly written English passages: [T]wo qualities are common to all of them. The first is staleness of imagery; the other is lack of precision. The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house. https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_poli... It's very common to see this tactic used in communications from* organisations or institutions about matters of significant import. Take the recent " Email from Jeff Bezos to employees", as a classic example: https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/email-from-jeff-bezos-to-employees https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/email-from-jef... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26006656 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26006656). The title entirely fails to adequately describe the actual subject. As is the case with the IMF's blog entry.
- pvg 6y ago
  The title is neither misleading nor linkbait. If you think the article is bad, you can't fix it by making up the title, just find a better article. It's really much more straightforward than you are making it out to be and does not require analysis of Orwells works. Although it is a somewhat curious choice on your part given that you seem to be trying to show that plain editorializing (i.e. "I found that to be the most relevant point") is not, in fact, editorializing. It's editorializing.
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    The original IMF title is a lie by vagueness. The article is evil in large part because it proposes an absolutely Orwellian regime ... well, pretty much precisely as Orwell suggests such things happen. In vague, political, bureaucratic, anodyne language, with no awareness or consideration of consequences, damage, or alternatives. As a reference to the evil, the article is invaluable. It is the primary source, straight from the horse's mouth. Much as, say, Mein Kampf was, and the reason a young journalist violated copyright to ensure that it was prominently available in the United States in unexpurgated form: <https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-02-14-mn-42699-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-02-14-mn-42699-...> You're presenting a false dichotomy of "making up a the title". The question is how best to find a truth within the mealy-mouthed source. Which has mostly been done (I'm not entirely satisfied with the present HN title "IMF researchers: digital footprint yields better credit assessment", but it certainly improves on the original.
    - pvg 6y ago
      Let's wrap up here but, again, there is a totally trivial remedy for an article being "evil". Just don't post it to HN.
      - dredmorbius 6y ago
        Exposing the evil is the utility here. Letting this proposal float unobserved is the greater evil. Sunshine ... isn't always a great disinfectant, but it is in this case.

by pvg 6y ago

da_big_ghey 6y ago

Without "making up" a headline, and were I to have used the original headline of "What is Really New in Fintech", I would not have considered this a useful submission due to the complete lack of information conveyed by the headline. The article contained important info but the headline was meaningless, so I did my best to come up with something. I guess my first attempt fell short.

anothernewdude 6y ago

No, you have to allow the source to do the editorializing, because that's so much better.

dredmorbius 6y ago

The HN submission guidelines do allow for changes in title, though usually it's to combat undue sensationalism. Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html In this case, the problem is an excess of bureaucratese, euphemism, jargon, and vagueness. As Orwell wrote in "Politics and the English Language" on five badly written English passages: [T]wo qualities are common to all of them. The first is staleness of imagery; the other is lack of precision. The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house. https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_poli... It's very common to see this tactic used in communications from* organisations or institutions about matters of significant import. Take the recent " Email from Jeff Bezos to employees", as a classic example: https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/email-from-jeff-bezos-to-employees https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/email-from-jef... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26006656 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26006656). The title entirely fails to adequately describe the actual subject. As is the case with the IMF's blog entry.

pvg 6y ago
The title is neither misleading nor linkbait. If you think the article is bad, you can't fix it by making up the title, just find a better article. It's really much more straightforward than you are making it out to be and does not require analysis of Orwells works. Although it is a somewhat curious choice on your part given that you seem to be trying to show that plain editorializing (i.e. "I found that to be the most relevant point") is not, in fact, editorializing. It's editorializing.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  The original IMF title is a lie by vagueness. The article is evil in large part because it proposes an absolutely Orwellian regime ... well, pretty much precisely as Orwell suggests such things happen. In vague, political, bureaucratic, anodyne language, with no awareness or consideration of consequences, damage, or alternatives. As a reference to the evil, the article is invaluable. It is the primary source, straight from the horse's mouth. Much as, say, Mein Kampf was, and the reason a young journalist violated copyright to ensure that it was prominently available in the United States in unexpurgated form: <https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-02-14-mn-42699-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-02-14-mn-42699-...> You're presenting a false dichotomy of "making up a the title". The question is how best to find a truth within the mealy-mouthed source. Which has mostly been done (I'm not entirely satisfied with the present HN title "IMF researchers: digital footprint yields better credit assessment", but it certainly improves on the original.
  - pvg 6y ago
    Let's wrap up here but, again, there is a totally trivial remedy for an article being "evil". Just don't post it to HN.
    - dredmorbius 6y ago
      Exposing the evil is the utility here. Letting this proposal float unobserved is the greater evil. Sunshine ... isn't always a great disinfectant, but it is in this case.