3 ms·

Another completely editorialized submission rising to the front page. It's funny because a few days ago someone made a thread [1] asking for non-clickbait/non-

Another completely editorialized submission rising to the front page. It's funny because a few days ago someone made a thread [1] asking for non-clickbait/non-sensationalist resources and almost all enthusiastically suggested HN. If only they knew... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33212499 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33212499

someguydave 4y ago
origin_path 4y ago
- dang 4y ago
  Ok, but surely you know that HN submitters aren't allowed to use the title field to editorialize, and certainly not on divisive topics. That would turn the entire site into a flamewar farm. If you want to say what you think is important about an article, that's fine, but do it by adding a comment to the thread. Then your 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...
  - origin_path 4y ago
    Yes, normally that'd be fine. Usually in submissions I only edit a title for length, but in this case: 1. The paper's actual title says so little about the study or why it's worth paying attention to it that I felt it was completely worthless. Given what they say in the abstract they did, do you think the current title is actually appropriate at all? It doesn't even communicate that they were engineering viruses, let alone the 80% fatality rate outcome which is what matters most here. 2. I still do not agree that the title chosen was "editorialized". It neutrally and accurately reflected the outcome of their study, as stated in their own abstract. A headline is supposed to summarize succinctly what the article is about or says - the current headline just doesn't do that. For anyone else wondering what this is about, the original title was (I think) this: "Researchers develop Omicron variant with 80% fatality rate" which is a correct summary of the research, that doesn't contain slant. The current one is "Role of spike in pathogenic and antigenic behavior of SARS-CoV-2 BA.1 Omicron", which appears to be selected to communicate as little as possible about the actual research.

someguydave 4y ago

origin_path 4y ago

dang 4y ago
Ok, but surely you know that HN submitters aren't allowed to use the title field to editorialize, and certainly not on divisive topics. That would turn the entire site into a flamewar farm. If you want to say what you think is important about an article, that's fine, but do it by adding a comment to the thread. Then your 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...
- origin_path 4y ago
  Yes, normally that'd be fine. Usually in submissions I only edit a title for length, but in this case: 1. The paper's actual title says so little about the study or why it's worth paying attention to it that I felt it was completely worthless. Given what they say in the abstract they did, do you think the current title is actually appropriate at all? It doesn't even communicate that they were engineering viruses, let alone the 80% fatality rate outcome which is what matters most here. 2. I still do not agree that the title chosen was "editorialized". It neutrally and accurately reflected the outcome of their study, as stated in their own abstract. A headline is supposed to summarize succinctly what the article is about or says - the current headline just doesn't do that. For anyone else wondering what this is about, the original title was (I think) this: "Researchers develop Omicron variant with 80% fatality rate" which is a correct summary of the research, that doesn't contain slant. The current one is "Role of spike in pathogenic and antigenic behavior of SARS-CoV-2 BA.1 Omicron", which appears to be selected to communicate as little as possible about the actual research.