5 ms·

The article was 6 paragraphs long. I’m not sure citing two paragraphs without commentary adds much value.

elil17 4y ago
How would we read the article if people didn’t put it in the comments? What, by clicking the link? Unthinkable! Please remember this is hacker news, you’re not allowed to click the link /s
dvh 4y ago
It does, I didn't have to read it. Title might as well been "unused internet cable breaks down in Vietnam"
- Brian_K_White 4y ago
  So you read it here instead of there, and everyone else gets to read it twice. Cool.
ortusdux 4y ago
You would be surprised by the number of people that skip the article and start commenting based solely on the headline.
- Robotbeat 4y ago
  Even more surprised by editors who will knowingly mislead with the headline in order to force people to click through and get those sweet, sweet ad (or subscriber) dollars just to find out the “man bites dog” headline was a lie.
  - hellotomyrars 4y ago
    I have seen multiple instances where the url was a significantly less sensationalist title that was presumably the authors original headline but an editor decided they needed to get the clicks and modified the actual article headline. Very funny how laid bare it was.
    - ortusdux 4y ago
      I've noticed some sites start with a clickbait headline and then change it after a few hours to something less sensational. I originally thought that they were responding to criticism, but I've seen it enough now that it seems to be a pre-planned way to game SEO/Socials. You can use the wayback machine to check, and I've seen some big headlines get revised down 4+ times.
layer8 4y ago
Quoting from the article without further comment can also be quite annoying to those who did read the article, for whom this is then just a waste of time. It’s like, okay, that’s from the article, but what is your point?
- nosianu 4y ago
  When the headline is contradicted by the article then the relevant quite is relevant and valuable. It saves time. Not everybody reads the article, I'd say that it even is rare and that a lot, maybe even most people jump to the discussion immediately after reading the headline. Because of cases such as this one: When you quickly see the headline being contradicted. Usually articles are a lot longer and they bury such info deep, so checking the comments first if its even worth clicking on the article is normal, given the huge number of sensationalized headlines coupled with the attempt of the article writers to keep readers on their page for as long as possible instead of coming to the point right away. The reading behavior of many is optimized for sifting through a large number of submitted headlines without wasting too much time, not for maximum enjoyment of any single one of them. The (I think reasonable) assumption is that many, maybe most, even of the initially interesting sounding headlines turn out not to be worth reading.
  - layer8 4y ago
    Yes, but then please at least state your point why you are quoting this portion — preferably above the quote rather than below. Otherwise one can be left to wonder.

How would we read the article if people didn’t put it in the comments? What, by clicking the link? Unthinkable! Please remember this is hacker news, you’re not allowed to click the link /s

dvh 4y ago

It does, I didn't have to read it. Title might as well been "unused internet cable breaks down in Vietnam"

Brian_K_White 4y ago
So you read it here instead of there, and everyone else gets to read it twice. Cool.

ortusdux 4y ago

You would be surprised by the number of people that skip the article and start commenting based solely on the headline.

Robotbeat 4y ago
Even more surprised by editors who will knowingly mislead with the headline in order to force people to click through and get those sweet, sweet ad (or subscriber) dollars just to find out the “man bites dog” headline was a lie.
- hellotomyrars 4y ago
  I have seen multiple instances where the url was a significantly less sensationalist title that was presumably the authors original headline but an editor decided they needed to get the clicks and modified the actual article headline. Very funny how laid bare it was.
  - ortusdux 4y ago
    I've noticed some sites start with a clickbait headline and then change it after a few hours to something less sensational. I originally thought that they were responding to criticism, but I've seen it enough now that it seems to be a pre-planned way to game SEO/Socials. You can use the wayback machine to check, and I've seen some big headlines get revised down 4+ times.

layer8 4y ago

Quoting from the article without further comment can also be quite annoying to those who did read the article, for whom this is then just a waste of time. It’s like, okay, that’s from the article, but what is your point?

nosianu 4y ago
When the headline is contradicted by the article then the relevant quite is relevant and valuable. It saves time. Not everybody reads the article, I'd say that it even is rare and that a lot, maybe even most people jump to the discussion immediately after reading the headline. Because of cases such as this one: When you quickly see the headline being contradicted. Usually articles are a lot longer and they bury such info deep, so checking the comments first if its even worth clicking on the article is normal, given the huge number of sensationalized headlines coupled with the attempt of the article writers to keep readers on their page for as long as possible instead of coming to the point right away. The reading behavior of many is optimized for sifting through a large number of submitted headlines without wasting too much time, not for maximum enjoyment of any single one of them. The (I think reasonable) assumption is that many, maybe most, even of the initially interesting sounding headlines turn out not to be worth reading.
- layer8 4y ago
  Yes, but then please at least state your point why you are quoting this portion — preferably above the quote rather than below. Otherwise one can be left to wonder.