4 ms·

Sorry for my meta-snark, but: This is an example of bad editing of the title. The original one was much more descriptive and got to the core of what is interes

Sorry for my meta-snark, but: This is an example of bad editing of the title. The original one was much more descriptive and got to the core of what is interesting about this article. The edit has made the title bland and uninformative.

incision 14y ago
I've seen a comment or two about title-editing, but this is the first time I've observed it and I certainly agree. This is a pointless edit: A useful, descriptive, non-sensational / non-opinionated title replaced with something that is just plain worse. How did this even get started? Too much bitching / derailing about editorialized titles?
- teach 14y ago
  "How did this even get started?" Well, the Hacker News guidelines[1] say: > Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait. This rule is frequently violated, because a lot of the times the original title is bad. So submitters that are used to reddit re-title the link, sometimes for worse and sometimes for the better. But HN is pretty strict about the title rule, so they get edited back to the original pretty quickly. [1] http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - petercooper 14y ago
    Weird. They've changed the rules. What you quoted seemed very weird to me since I'd sorta internalized the guidelines and it seems they got edited over the past year. See http://web.archive.org/web/20120222184108/http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://web.archive.org/web/20120222184108/http://ycombinator... for what they were a year ago. You can make up a new title if you want, but if you put gratuitous editorial spin on it, the editors may rewrite it. It seems that part has been thrown out the window and rewrites are no longer welcome. A shame.
    - teach 14y ago
      It is a shame. As it stands now, the system "punishes" rule followers who leave the original, uninteresting title and thereby get no traction. But those who rewrite the title to something more obviously relevant get decent views even if the submission is re-titled later.
      - petercooper 14y ago
        That's why I think the removal of the "you can make up a new title [as long as it's not ridiculous]" rule is bizarre. Now you might as well break the rules to get out of /newest and then confuse everyone once it's on FP and edited back ;-) The sad fact is a lot of people who create great content are really, really bad at titles.
  - incision 14y ago
    Interesting that submitters are actually asked to do a handful of editing work that could probably be automated, but prevented from performing the subjective work of summarizing or restating that a human being is actually suited to. Seems like a rule worth changing to me.
inovica 14y ago
Fully agree with you. I saw the article earlier and thought I'd come back to read it and discovered that either its been edited or that this is a second article.
erode 14y ago
Noticed that and was glad to see I wasn't the only one. Was it done by an admin? If it was, they need to take a cue from reddit admins.
manaskarekar 14y ago
A controversial suggestion: Mention a small indicator ('*' or '~') below or after a renamed title, clicking on which will show a log of the original title, the name of the admin who made the change and a footnote.
- petercooper 14y ago
  The original title could also be in a "title" element on the A tag so that hovering over it would show the original. (Not necessarily a better idea but involves no interface changes which the YC folks seem not to like doing.)
cliveholloway 14y ago
I clicked through after seeing original headline. It made sense. This means nothing to me at all. Aren't editors meant to make things more readable?
ricardobeat 14y ago
What was the original title?
- Matti 14y ago
  http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5152415 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5152415
petercooper 14y ago
It appears the guidelines page got changed in the past year and the "You can make up a new title if you want, but if you put gratuitous editorial spin on it, the editors may rewrite it" clause has been removed :-(

incision 14y ago

I've seen a comment or two about title-editing, but this is the first time I've observed it and I certainly agree. This is a pointless edit: A useful, descriptive, non-sensational / non-opinionated title replaced with something that is just plain worse. How did this even get started? Too much bitching / derailing about editorialized titles?

teach 14y ago
"How did this even get started?" Well, the Hacker News guidelines[1] say: > Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait. This rule is frequently violated, because a lot of the times the original title is bad. So submitters that are used to reddit re-title the link, sometimes for worse and sometimes for the better. But HN is pretty strict about the title rule, so they get edited back to the original pretty quickly. [1] http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- petercooper 14y ago
  Weird. They've changed the rules. What you quoted seemed very weird to me since I'd sorta internalized the guidelines and it seems they got edited over the past year. See http://web.archive.org/web/20120222184108/http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://web.archive.org/web/20120222184108/http://ycombinator... for what they were a year ago. You can make up a new title if you want, but if you put gratuitous editorial spin on it, the editors may rewrite it. It seems that part has been thrown out the window and rewrites are no longer welcome. A shame.
  - teach 14y ago
    It is a shame. As it stands now, the system "punishes" rule followers who leave the original, uninteresting title and thereby get no traction. But those who rewrite the title to something more obviously relevant get decent views even if the submission is re-titled later.
    - petercooper 14y ago
      That's why I think the removal of the "you can make up a new title [as long as it's not ridiculous]" rule is bizarre. Now you might as well break the rules to get out of /newest and then confuse everyone once it's on FP and edited back ;-) The sad fact is a lot of people who create great content are really, really bad at titles.
- incision 14y ago
  Interesting that submitters are actually asked to do a handful of editing work that could probably be automated, but prevented from performing the subjective work of summarizing or restating that a human being is actually suited to. Seems like a rule worth changing to me.

inovica 14y ago

Fully agree with you. I saw the article earlier and thought I'd come back to read it and discovered that either its been edited or that this is a second article.

erode 14y ago

Noticed that and was glad to see I wasn't the only one. Was it done by an admin? If it was, they need to take a cue from reddit admins.

manaskarekar 14y ago

A controversial suggestion: Mention a small indicator ('*' or '~') below or after a renamed title, clicking on which will show a log of the original title, the name of the admin who made the change and a footnote.

petercooper 14y ago
The original title could also be in a "title" element on the A tag so that hovering over it would show the original. (Not necessarily a better idea but involves no interface changes which the YC folks seem not to like doing.)

cliveholloway 14y ago

I clicked through after seeing original headline. It made sense. This means nothing to me at all. Aren't editors meant to make things more readable?

ricardobeat 14y ago

What was the original title?

Matti 14y ago
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5152415 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5152415

petercooper 14y ago

It appears the guidelines page got changed in the past year and the "You can make up a new title if you want, but if you put gratuitous editorial spin on it, the editors may rewrite it" clause has been removed :-(