3 ms·

this article is a good example of why "why" should be removed

by throwaway290 10mo ago

richstokes 10mo ago
Why?
happytoexplain 10mo ago
Can you explain?
- mmastrac 10mo ago
  "Why" is redundant. If the article is stating premise "X" and it's on the front page (assuming it's not newsworthy enough that "X" is novel and worth discussion), it's obviously going to explain "Why X" and "X" is sufficient.
  - anamexis 10mo ago
    "Why" only adds clarity. What is the advantage of removing it?
    - 0x1ch 10mo ago
      People on HN hold very odd opinions near and dear to their hearts. Minor variances in a article title being one of them.
      - sitkack 10mo ago
        They internalize title heuristics because of who they perceive is the author of the heuristics.
        0x1ch 10mo ago
        I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say. HN users mimic other HN posters they find credible?
        happytoexplain 10mo ago
        "You can tell the kind of person by how they write"
        sitkack 10mo ago
        You can tell the kind of person by what they write.
    - throwaway290 10mo ago
      "Why" and "how" is clickbait hooks. The point is always what is after
  - Trasmatta 10mo ago
    But why does HN feel it's necessary to editorialize titles like that? My browsing experience isn't any better because HN decided to strip out the "why", and I've seen multiple situations in the past where the auto editing of titles here actually resulted in a title that made zero sense.
  - sigmar 10mo ago
    Lots of posts on HN state the fact "X" is happening and are searching for help to find the reason or just conveying a story. "Why" in the title tells people the author knows the reason and is going to explain it in the post.
  - happytoexplain 10mo ago
    Is that actually the rationale, or are you guessing? It seems weak, if true, since: - An article reporting X does not or can not necessarily always explain why X. - Removing "Why" can (and does) destroy some titles, and submitters aren't always going to notice it was changed under their nose and fix it before submitting (or they will consciously trust the bad change, if they are not themselves an experienced reader of the language). - Removing "why" doesn't seem to have any impact aside from saving a tiny bit of space and a tiny bit of annoyance for the small subset of people who are opinionated writers and dislike seeing the "why" trope in the cases when it is truly unnecessary. It's not like we're talking about the "You won't believe why..." trope. Then I could understand.
    - throwaway290 10mo ago
      it's the norm that article talks about why and how. - If article "I have to give Fortnite my passport to use Bluesky" does not explain why and how then it's a bad article not worth sharing on HN anyway - "Why", "how" is clickbait. It's the "You won't believe how" intensificator but for thinking geeks. The real topic is always what happens after. unless it's an actual question quoted in title, in that 1% of cases it can be edited in.

this article is a good example of why "why" should be removed

richstokes 10mo ago

Why?

happytoexplain 10mo ago

Can you explain?

mmastrac 10mo ago
"Why" is redundant. If the article is stating premise "X" and it's on the front page (assuming it's not newsworthy enough that "X" is novel and worth discussion), it's obviously going to explain "Why X" and "X" is sufficient.
- anamexis 10mo ago
  "Why" only adds clarity. What is the advantage of removing it?
  - 0x1ch 10mo ago
    People on HN hold very odd opinions near and dear to their hearts. Minor variances in a article title being one of them.
    - sitkack 10mo ago
      They internalize title heuristics because of who they perceive is the author of the heuristics.
      - 0x1ch 10mo ago
        I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say. HN users mimic other HN posters they find credible?
        happytoexplain 10mo ago
        "You can tell the kind of person by how they write"
        sitkack 10mo ago
        You can tell the kind of person by what they write.
  - throwaway290 10mo ago
    "Why" and "how" is clickbait hooks. The point is always what is after
- Trasmatta 10mo ago
  But why does HN feel it's necessary to editorialize titles like that? My browsing experience isn't any better because HN decided to strip out the "why", and I've seen multiple situations in the past where the auto editing of titles here actually resulted in a title that made zero sense.
- sigmar 10mo ago
  Lots of posts on HN state the fact "X" is happening and are searching for help to find the reason or just conveying a story. "Why" in the title tells people the author knows the reason and is going to explain it in the post.
- happytoexplain 10mo ago
  Is that actually the rationale, or are you guessing? It seems weak, if true, since: - An article reporting X does not or can not necessarily always explain why X. - Removing "Why" can (and does) destroy some titles, and submitters aren't always going to notice it was changed under their nose and fix it before submitting (or they will consciously trust the bad change, if they are not themselves an experienced reader of the language). - Removing "why" doesn't seem to have any impact aside from saving a tiny bit of space and a tiny bit of annoyance for the small subset of people who are opinionated writers and dislike seeing the "why" trope in the cases when it is truly unnecessary. It's not like we're talking about the "You won't believe why..." trope. Then I could understand.
  - throwaway290 10mo ago
    it's the norm that article talks about why and how. - If article "I have to give Fortnite my passport to use Bluesky" does not explain why and how then it's a bad article not worth sharing on HN anyway - "Why", "how" is clickbait. It's the "You won't believe how" intensificator but for thinking geeks. The real topic is always what happens after. unless it's an actual question quoted in title, in that 1% of cases it can be edited in.