5 ms·

I'd be interested in hearing the rationale for changing the titles.

stephengillie 14y ago
We could present both the original title and the updated one within the comments thread, and allow people to vote on which title they like more.
- gnosis 14y ago
  The thing is that the attention a submission gets is almost completely determined by the title. A crappy title will ruin the chances of most people even bothering to look at the comments. So I don't think this is a workable idea. Just leave the submitted title as is, and let the HN readers vote it up if they think it's worth it.
  - niggler 14y ago
    I wonder whether a simple post-downvote would be more effective than the existing flagging mechanism
  - absconditus 14y ago
    This is not reddit. Stop worrying about such things.
- gojomo 14y ago
  I look forward to some social news site offering some version of this; it could help create more informative and time-saving titles. Alas, I don't expect it here, given the HN minimalism. Roughly how it might work: in addition to the 'comments' page, there'd be a 'headline' page. (Borrowing terminology from journalism, this might also be called the 'hed' page.) Posts here would be proposed alternate titles; the most upvoted would be the default on lists (like top stories). Perhaps, list views could show the top 2-3 titles (maybe as a user-specific option, or only when there's controversy). Each submission could also get a 'subhead' ('dek' in journalist lingo), for more exposition/teasing of content. It'd be voted on the same way. Perhaps, even, a similar approach could be used for competitive summaries, but I suspect that's likely to result in more controversy and less consensus/convergence.
yen223 14y ago
Usually they'll change submission titles to match the original article's title. I actually prefer it this way. This way, HN is neutral - by presenting the article title as-is, they aren't asserting any opinions on the subject (usually).
- Cushman 14y ago
  Er, no, they're asserting the opinion of the author of the article. That's not neutral at all.
  - yen223 14y ago
    That's the point. The article title should reflect the author's opinion, not the submitter's, nor HN's.
    - stch2 14y ago
      Why is the author's opinion more relevant or acceptable than the submitter's or HN's? You state it like it's obvious, but I don't see why the author's opinion is particularly special.
      - yen223 14y ago
        The way I see it, when I click a link, I'm signalling that I'm interested in reading the author's opinion, not the submitter's interpretation of the subject - that's what the comment section is for. When I put it that way, it only makes sense that the title should reflect the original article's title.
        furyofantares 14y ago
        When I'm reading through a list of titles on HN deciding which to click on, I'm more interested in why the submitter thinks it's relevant to HN and why they think I should click it. If I do click through, I will read the title.
    - 14y ago

We could present both the original title and the updated one within the comments thread, and allow people to vote on which title they like more.

gnosis 14y ago
The thing is that the attention a submission gets is almost completely determined by the title. A crappy title will ruin the chances of most people even bothering to look at the comments. So I don't think this is a workable idea. Just leave the submitted title as is, and let the HN readers vote it up if they think it's worth it.
- niggler 14y ago
  I wonder whether a simple post-downvote would be more effective than the existing flagging mechanism
- absconditus 14y ago
  This is not reddit. Stop worrying about such things.
gojomo 14y ago
I look forward to some social news site offering some version of this; it could help create more informative and time-saving titles. Alas, I don't expect it here, given the HN minimalism. Roughly how it might work: in addition to the 'comments' page, there'd be a 'headline' page. (Borrowing terminology from journalism, this might also be called the 'hed' page.) Posts here would be proposed alternate titles; the most upvoted would be the default on lists (like top stories). Perhaps, list views could show the top 2-3 titles (maybe as a user-specific option, or only when there's controversy). Each submission could also get a 'subhead' ('dek' in journalist lingo), for more exposition/teasing of content. It'd be voted on the same way. Perhaps, even, a similar approach could be used for competitive summaries, but I suspect that's likely to result in more controversy and less consensus/convergence.

yen223 14y ago

Usually they'll change submission titles to match the original article's title. I actually prefer it this way. This way, HN is neutral - by presenting the article title as-is, they aren't asserting any opinions on the subject (usually).

Cushman 14y ago
Er, no, they're asserting the opinion of the author of the article. That's not neutral at all.
- yen223 14y ago
  That's the point. The article title should reflect the author's opinion, not the submitter's, nor HN's.
  - stch2 14y ago
    Why is the author's opinion more relevant or acceptable than the submitter's or HN's? You state it like it's obvious, but I don't see why the author's opinion is particularly special.
    - yen223 14y ago
      The way I see it, when I click a link, I'm signalling that I'm interested in reading the author's opinion, not the submitter's interpretation of the subject - that's what the comment section is for. When I put it that way, it only makes sense that the title should reflect the original article's title.
      - furyofantares 14y ago
        When I'm reading through a list of titles on HN deciding which to click on, I'm more interested in why the submitter thinks it's relevant to HN and why they think I should click it. If I do click through, I will read the title.
  - 14y ago