5 ms·
The convention is to put the date of publication of the submitted thing. In this case, the archive entry. I like the think people can work out pretty quick that
by Kye 3y ago
The convention is to put the date of publication of the submitted thing. In this case, the archive entry. I like the think people can work out pretty quick that an ancient hypertext game isn't a modern 3D puzzle game.
- amiga386 3y agoThat's because what is submitted is usually an article. The thing being linked, the thing of value to the reader, is a news report or opinion piece created in that year. In this case, it's irrelevant that a game-wiki added this 1986 game to their site in 2021. There are other websites that catalogued the same game in a different year. What matters to the reader - what they get when they click the link - is an adventure game called Portal from 1986. Hence why "Portal (1986)" would be a more honest title. People can also work out quickly that they got conned by a clickbait title, but they only find out after clicking. They'd rather not be conned at all, the link title should be honest.
- Kye 3y ago"conned" There's no deception here. Just a disagreement over notation. I don't think someone comes in expecting a quirky puzzle game and is aggrieved to find a different quirky puzzle game. If it bugs you that much, talk to whoever changed the title. I submitted it without a year because I didn't know it was from 2021.
- amiga386 3y agoI speak only for myself, but I clicked with expectations of something relating to the famous 2007 game. I have been conned, and I am aggrieved. Hence why I'm wasting my time here trying to get it put right. This is what clickbait is. If I see a headline "Ronaldo signs for AC Milan", and I click it and it's Ronaldo Munck (a sociologist unrelated to the world-famous footballer), he signing for delivery of an air conditioning unit at his home in Milan, not entering into a contract with the world-famous Italian football team... I was duped. Conned. Swindled. The title made implications that weren't met, and my time was wasted. Be honest with prospective readers. Call it Portal (1986). The 2021 has nothing to do with anything, and just lays the groundwork for hoodwinking.
- Kye 3y agoOkay. Tell it to whoever changed the title, or email the mods to make your case (bottom of the page). That's a pretty high level access! So someone with more clout than either of us felt 2021 was right (and I tend to agree but don't care either way). That's on top of it being added to and voted out of the second chance queue on to the front page without a year. You're making your case in the wrong place to the wrong person and going against what seems to be a strong multi-tier consensus that it's fine.
- phendrenad2 3y agoThere's no consensus, I also think this is ridiculous. At the very least, remove the (2021) like all the other software links on HN.
- Kye 3y agoAgain, it's not me. I didn't put a year in and I can't edit it.
- aidenn0 3y ago> I speak only for myself, but I clicked with expectations of something relating to the famous 2007 game. Mismatched expectations, by themselves, do not make a "con" or "hoodwink." Those require intent. Calling the headline "confusing" or "misleading" is fine, but, given that the norms here is to put the year of publication of the linked page, assuming intent to mislead is a bridge to far.