6 ms·
Please change the title to be less sensationalist. The title from the article is perfectly acceptable.
by nsagent 2y ago
Please change the title to be less sensationalist. The title from the article is perfectly acceptable.
- JohnMakin 2y agoIt's not inaccurate though? This is a complete reversal.
- rsstack 2y agoHN guidelines are "please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."
- mossTechnician 2y agoThe original wording confuses because it can easily be interpreted in the passive sense.
- rsstack 2y agoThe decision on the title was already made - in the source. Unless the source violated HN guidelines, its title should be kept as is and not "improved".
- sourcepluck 2y agoTo you and GP - I think the original title was misleading, and I tried not to and hope I succeeded in not editorialising. Editorialising is injecting personal opinion instead of focusing on the facts, which is the opposite of what I did. I removed the misleading ambiguity and instead stated as clearly and shortly as I could the essence of the story. The original title leaves open the idea that this decision doesn't have a precedent which it is overturning, which is unnecessary and misleading. And the original title strongly implies that the recent revelation from Meta only relates to the U.S., which similarly is not true and is misleading. For a U.S. audience that might seem to make sense, but HN has international readers.
- 8338550bff96 2y agoThe levenshtein distance of the title is 50. Considering the title is 62 characters, I would say it is not accurate.