3 ms·

Genuinely curious, not asking combatively... ... what's the big deal? I don't get the fuss over something like this. Feels innocuous.

• fragmede 3y ago
  When you make a submission, you want people to click on your link and if there’s a stupid headline, then they’re not gonna click on your link. Other times it could come across as misleading if the article’s headline, uses I, but I’m not the one that wrote it, using that headline makes it seem like I was the one that wrote it and I don’t want to make it seem like I’m pretending to be someone else and take credit for their work. Might not be a big deal to you, but I hate it when other people take credit for my work.
• creer 3y ago
  There is a range of useless, misleading, and time wasting. In this case, the title is fun and deliberately misleading (in a fun way, sure) and a waste of time. And is really but really not likely to lead the right audience to the right article. Often other times the title is not misleading but totally useless. A recent example: "Grok" (and URL) - which is sufficient if you already know what this is about but totally unhelpful otherwise. Another recent example "A Parabel" - who's going to click through? Will they have clicked through in any deliberate manner or just grazing? If anyone wanted to encourage deliberate use of our time, this is not the way to do it. None of this is the end of the world. But it IS wasting our time. This all at the same time as HN gets too many submissions for the members to usefully screen. Seems to me many useful submissions fall through with hardly any notice. Allowing more useful titles (without even demanding them) would go in the right direction: more of the useful submissions making it through and more of our time spent on the right things.