True, but then at least give a meaningful title. Intentionally cryptic titles can be a good artistic choice to make people curious - but then add a summary or

True, but then at least give a meaningful title. Intentionally cryptic titles can be a good artistic choice to make people curious - but then add a summary or be kind enough to solve the riddle in the first few paragraphs. Same with stream-of-consciousness blog posts or articles that start with some barely related story before they get to the point - but then add an informative title. It's just that if both the title and the post refuse to tell what the article is even about, I feel like someone is purposely trying to be obscure. I think HN, the site, also deserves some criticism here: It actively discourages people from adding any kind of context or explanation why they wanted to post a link here, so you end up with a list of just titles with no context and have to guess what the article will be about. But if the poster isn't allowed to add context and the author doesn't want to, where are you supposed to get context from?