4 ms·
I hate that titles can differ from the article here. It’s patronizing and commonly inaccurate or misleading.
by ShamelessC 3y ago
I hate that titles can differ from the article here. It’s patronizing and commonly inaccurate or misleading.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago“Patronizing” seems to be a matter of taste. I’ve never considered it to be patronizing; indeed, that’s often much unlike articles which have their title changed. As far as simply differing, much of the time there’s a character limit that’s hit. I’ve seen many posts with comment from the poster calling out their edit to the title and the character limit is usually cited. It would be especially difficult to keep the character limit (I think there are legitimate design reasons for this) while also requiring that the title matches the submission as closely as possible. Who decides what words are omitted without it potentially being any of: patronizing, inaccurate, or misleading?
- ftxbro 3y agoI don't like the misleading titles either, but honestly if you want the real titles you probably want some kind of arxiv feed. The paper title is "Curious Replay for Model-based Adaptation" which is too dry for social media or whatever hacker news is or for whoever is the audience of the stanford university press office. You have to expect more juicy (and therefore somewhat misleading or sensationalized) titles if you don't get your news straight from an arxiv feed.