4 ms·

The original title was more descriptive, fwiw. The current one means nobody has any idea what makes this fuel loading newsworthy, unless they already know and t

by lucb1e 4y ago

The original title was more descriptive, fwiw. The current one means nobody has any idea what makes this fuel loading newsworthy, unless they already know and then they don't need to read about it on HN

dang 4y ago
If a submitter (or anyone) wants to say what they think is important about an article, that's fine, but they should do it by adding a comment to the thread. Then their view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22level%20playing%20field%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... The title is not the place to do this; on HN, being the submitter of an article doesn't confer any special right to frame the topic for everyone else. That's super important, because titles are overwhelmingly the dominant influence on discussion.
- DisjointedHunt 4y ago
  On HN, many people may run their own sites and thus able to freely editorialize however they choose. Editorializing headlines of a press release directed at a different audience with likely more context to make it accessible shouldn’t be seen as a bad thing. It spurs discussion. Perhaps the boundaries of editorializing headlines need to move to accommodate for this. So long as there isn’t opinion inserted, it seems fine. The earlier submissions title was imperfect for being too short and missing the qualifier “The first . . . In the US”
  - pvg 4y ago
    It spurs discussion. It often ends up spurring discussion about titles. Plus, HN has no shortage of discussion and comments do a pretty adequate job of spurring discussion. The 'level playing' thing in the linked bit is the key part, though - you don't get a megacomment (which is what writing your own title essentially ends up being) just because you posted something.
    - DisjointedHunt 4y ago
      If you own your own site, you could rehash a press release on your own and use whatever “mega comment” title you choose. Hence not a level playing field for anyone else posting a link from a press release. If the title, as we see here is very niche, it will not spur discussion from people not inherently familiar with why “Vogtle Unit 3” is any different from 1 or 2. You’re adding layers of friction and reducing accessibility to information. People won’t research every oddball title they see and thus get stuck in content/ranking bubbles. The title of the press release is targeting people with a lot of context. This industry has very long cycles and thus not a lot of people will have all the context.
      - pvg 4y ago
        You’re adding layers of friction If you haven't had a chance, you should take a look at some of the decade's or so worth of Title Thought that's gone into the way it works now - dang's link is a good jumping off point. The results are surely imperfect but if you want to promote change, it helps to have some familiarity with the system you want change.
        DisjointedHunt 4y ago
        That's fair. Having looked at a few of those threads, I think the premise behind the "level playing field" statement is likely flawed. These are press releases. They will be sterile. Compare that with someone linking to their personal website where they can choose to add any title of their choosing. I'd humbly suggest that those two categories being treated the same on HN isn't right given how the latter may or may not be an originating story. I respect the work you guys put in to offer such a service to the community and for the patience in putting up with a nobody who's challenging your historical decisions in the comments :) I hope i don't come across as rude by saying that the experience for niche topics might be a little better if the headlines are made accessible without adding opinion. Other than that, i respect your work and will not editorialize the titles anymore.
        4y ago

by lucb1e 4y ago

dang 4y ago

If a submitter (or anyone) wants to say what they think is important about an article, that's fine, but they should do it by adding a comment to the thread. Then their view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22level%20playing%20field%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... The title is not the place to do this; on HN, being the submitter of an article doesn't confer any special right to frame the topic for everyone else. That's super important, because titles are overwhelmingly the dominant influence on discussion.

DisjointedHunt 4y ago
On HN, many people may run their own sites and thus able to freely editorialize however they choose. Editorializing headlines of a press release directed at a different audience with likely more context to make it accessible shouldn’t be seen as a bad thing. It spurs discussion. Perhaps the boundaries of editorializing headlines need to move to accommodate for this. So long as there isn’t opinion inserted, it seems fine. The earlier submissions title was imperfect for being too short and missing the qualifier “The first . . . In the US”
- pvg 4y ago
  It spurs discussion. It often ends up spurring discussion about titles. Plus, HN has no shortage of discussion and comments do a pretty adequate job of spurring discussion. The 'level playing' thing in the linked bit is the key part, though - you don't get a megacomment (which is what writing your own title essentially ends up being) just because you posted something.
  - DisjointedHunt 4y ago
    If you own your own site, you could rehash a press release on your own and use whatever “mega comment” title you choose. Hence not a level playing field for anyone else posting a link from a press release. If the title, as we see here is very niche, it will not spur discussion from people not inherently familiar with why “Vogtle Unit 3” is any different from 1 or 2. You’re adding layers of friction and reducing accessibility to information. People won’t research every oddball title they see and thus get stuck in content/ranking bubbles. The title of the press release is targeting people with a lot of context. This industry has very long cycles and thus not a lot of people will have all the context.
    - pvg 4y ago
      You’re adding layers of friction If you haven't had a chance, you should take a look at some of the decade's or so worth of Title Thought that's gone into the way it works now - dang's link is a good jumping off point. The results are surely imperfect but if you want to promote change, it helps to have some familiarity with the system you want change.
      - DisjointedHunt 4y ago
        That's fair. Having looked at a few of those threads, I think the premise behind the "level playing field" statement is likely flawed. These are press releases. They will be sterile. Compare that with someone linking to their personal website where they can choose to add any title of their choosing. I'd humbly suggest that those two categories being treated the same on HN isn't right given how the latter may or may not be an originating story. I respect the work you guys put in to offer such a service to the community and for the patience in putting up with a nobody who's challenging your historical decisions in the comments :) I hope i don't come across as rude by saying that the experience for niche topics might be a little better if the headlines are made accessible without adding opinion. Other than that, i respect your work and will not editorialize the titles anymore.
        4y ago