2 ms·
Hi Dang, OP here. I am aware of this guideline. The problem is that the original title is so... meaningless? that I decided to give the site a title that expla
by janandonly 3y ago
Hi Dang, OP here.
I am aware of this guideline. The problem is that the original title is so... meaningless? that I decided to give the site a title that explains why it's interesting.
In no way do I disrespect the idea behind this rule, I can see how it would lead to clickbait titles and such. I also didn't want to write a blogpost with a better title that simply refers to this resource at Apple's.
For full transparency, I came across this site because this interesting blogpost referred to it: https://www.lux.camera/halide-for-ios-17/ https://www.lux.camera/halide-for-ios-17/
The reference is in this sentence:
> Apple wants to avoid a similar fate in still photography, so this year they put their weight behind an open standard called "ISO HDR." Ok, technically it's ISO/TS 22028-5, which doesn't quite roll off the tongue. The important thing is that with iOS 17, Halide captures HDR photos. In fact, it has for years!
- dang 3y agoThat all seems reasonable to me. It's a tradeoff. One thing that frequently happens is that an edited title helps an article make the front page, and then we revert it after that. I think this can be a good balance sometimes. (If it were a bad article for HN, we wouldn't do that—rather we would downweight the thread.) I don't want to say "it's ok to break the rule in such a case for such a purpose" because one can't say that with any precision—it will just be heard as "ignore the rule and do whatever you want".