5 ms·

You should title them here with what they are titled there. If a title doesn't exist, give them one that is objective and not sensational. There is no real wa

by qhoxie 18y ago

You should title them here with what they are titled there. If a title doesn't exist, give them one that is objective and not sensational. There is no real way to get people interested in an article you think they should be.

iamdave 18y ago
In the case of a nonexistant title, I just grab a very detailing sentence from the post, and put it in with quotes.
yters 18y ago
While it would be nice if people only voted for and chose articles with objective titles, the ones that mainly populate our front page are a hybrid of the two. A good title both states something objective as well as how it meets the interest of a general reader.
- qhoxie 18y ago
  Right, that is largely because the top articles come from bloggers/writers/journalists whose goal it is to draw people in. Drawing in casual readers is not the goal of most highly technical writings.
  - yters 18y ago
    True, but a) the readers here are not your average casual reader (though maybe we are getting there), and b) it is possible to title a document so it appeals to a new audience. With technical writings, there is an immediate interest that draws in the readers. However, for a given audience, that interest is assumed. To pull in a new audience, the interest need merely be made explicit, and tied together with the article's material. I appreciate the responses, you've helped me think this issue through. I should now be able to give better titles to technical articles.
pg 18y ago
There is no real way to get people interested in an article you think they should be. That's not true. A good title will get an article several times more attention. I've found that the most effective titles (a) say what the article is about, and (b) appeal directly to the reader. For example, the original title of "Why Smart People Have Bad Ideas" was "Copper and Tin." It was a bogus move to name the thing after a metaphor I was proud of, and I got what I deserved. Who's going to click on a link titled "Copper and Tin?" You can't tell what it's going to be about, whatever it does turn out to be about probably won't affect you. The titles that seem to work the best are ones that to answer some question the reader cares about. E.g. "Why you procrastinate." The most effective of all seem to be the ones that promise (usually falsely) to cover all of some question, and embody this promise in a number: "The 7 reasons you procrastinate." You don't necessarily want to sink to using such linkbaitish titles-- especially here, please-- but they certainly work.
- qhoxie 18y ago
  I suppose I was not clear. What I meant was that there is no definite way to get people interested with the title. If they are not interested in the article itself, the title can only do so much. That said, I agree on the point of answering a question the reader cares about. I believe I have seen some good examples of that here on HN.
- yters 18y ago
  "Answer a question" Good insight, that links together the two items qhoxie and I mentioned before, readers' interest and article's content, in a succint phrase. You've also somewhat answered the second part, "what kills an article?" but do you have anything more to add?

by qhoxie 18y ago

iamdave 18y ago

In the case of a nonexistant title, I just grab a very detailing sentence from the post, and put it in with quotes.

yters 18y ago

While it would be nice if people only voted for and chose articles with objective titles, the ones that mainly populate our front page are a hybrid of the two. A good title both states something objective as well as how it meets the interest of a general reader.

qhoxie 18y ago
Right, that is largely because the top articles come from bloggers/writers/journalists whose goal it is to draw people in. Drawing in casual readers is not the goal of most highly technical writings.
- yters 18y ago
  True, but a) the readers here are not your average casual reader (though maybe we are getting there), and b) it is possible to title a document so it appeals to a new audience. With technical writings, there is an immediate interest that draws in the readers. However, for a given audience, that interest is assumed. To pull in a new audience, the interest need merely be made explicit, and tied together with the article's material. I appreciate the responses, you've helped me think this issue through. I should now be able to give better titles to technical articles.

pg 18y ago

There is no real way to get people interested in an article you think they should be. That's not true. A good title will get an article several times more attention. I've found that the most effective titles (a) say what the article is about, and (b) appeal directly to the reader. For example, the original title of "Why Smart People Have Bad Ideas" was "Copper and Tin." It was a bogus move to name the thing after a metaphor I was proud of, and I got what I deserved. Who's going to click on a link titled "Copper and Tin?" You can't tell what it's going to be about, whatever it does turn out to be about probably won't affect you. The titles that seem to work the best are ones that to answer some question the reader cares about. E.g. "Why you procrastinate." The most effective of all seem to be the ones that promise (usually falsely) to cover all of some question, and embody this promise in a number: "The 7 reasons you procrastinate." You don't necessarily want to sink to using such linkbaitish titles-- especially here, please-- but they certainly work.

qhoxie 18y ago
I suppose I was not clear. What I meant was that there is no definite way to get people interested with the title. If they are not interested in the article itself, the title can only do so much. That said, I agree on the point of answering a question the reader cares about. I believe I have seen some good examples of that here on HN.
yters 18y ago
"Answer a question" Good insight, that links together the two items qhoxie and I mentioned before, readers' interest and article's content, in a succint phrase. You've also somewhat answered the second part, "what kills an article?" but do you have anything more to add?