4 ms·

There's a guideline that you're not supposed to editorialise titles. When an editorialised title is detected, it is usually corrected. I happen to disagree wit

by swombat 13y ago

There's a guideline that you're not supposed to editorialise titles. When an editorialised title is detected, it is usually corrected. I happen to disagree with this policy and I think it's a somewhat overly rigid application of the guidelines. However, this is why it's happening, and it makes some sense from at least one perspective. And, after all, this is entirely pg's call to make.

amouat 13y ago
I submitted this article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5181742 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5181742 Which included David Byrne's (slightly misinformed) thoughts on the Aaron Swartz case. As such I titled it something like "David Byrne on Aaron Swartz" - it was changed to "Civil Disobedience" (the title of the blog article). Although the old title may be have been guilty of "editorialisation" in some sense, the new title gives no indication of why it would be of interest to HN readers. I really think this policy does a considerable deal of harm.
- manojlds 13y ago
  And I think the more important point is that there should be an indication that the title has been edited by a mod, and perhaps also show the original submitter title in the article page.
- mpclark 13y ago
  So it seems that the problem here is one field trying to do two jobs. It would take a change to the way things are presented, but what about having a title that is the same as the original article, and then another line -- a subtitle, if you will -- that (optionally) can contain the poster's rationale for contributing the link. In this case it could be: Civil Disobedience <small>David Byrne on Aaron Swartz</small>
  - zeckalpha 13y ago
    In cases like these "David Byrne: Civil Disobedience" might get past the mods.
    - ynniv 13y ago
      And yet that's still useless.
tankenmate 13y ago
I agree with you in that this is pg's site and his to run as he pleases. I also agree with you that the guideline doesn't always produce desirable outcomes. The issue as I see it is that the sum of parts is more than the whole; if less people of the calibre similar to yourself stop turning up then the site as whole starts to lose its value. Personally it's not enough to turn me away; maybe I have no taste :) Having said that it is a subjective issue and opinions are like farts; everybody's stinks. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
jellicle 13y ago
"Editorialize" is a very different word than, for example, "modify". What the current guidelines actually say is: "Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait." What they SHOULD say is something like "Don't editorialize the titles".
- gmac 13y ago
  I'm not sure that just this one word 'editorialize' is clear or specific enough, particularly given that a person much more readily identifies an 'editorialized' headline if it's one s/he disagrees with. Perhaps we should add an information criterion? E.g. "Otherwise please use the original title — unless it is linkbait, or misleading (or uninformative) about the content of the article."
stfu 13y ago
I think it is a fair guideline. It is so easy to spin and editorialize issues just by playing a bit around with a few words. It also avoids click baiting as most users probably can tell already by the url in how far a certain medium (...) uses sensationalist headlines. If somebody thinks that there is a different view or a overlooked aspect in a linked submission that is not reflected by the headline it would probably be best to blog about it and resubmit the link to the blog. The policy is public, it is consistently applied to any submission, even if you don't follow it the problem is fixed by an admin. I don't see any issue here that demands that kind of public outrage, let alone some kind of weird formal public letters.

by swombat 13y ago

amouat 13y ago

I submitted this article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5181742 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5181742 Which included David Byrne's (slightly misinformed) thoughts on the Aaron Swartz case. As such I titled it something like "David Byrne on Aaron Swartz" - it was changed to "Civil Disobedience" (the title of the blog article). Although the old title may be have been guilty of "editorialisation" in some sense, the new title gives no indication of why it would be of interest to HN readers. I really think this policy does a considerable deal of harm.

manojlds 13y ago
And I think the more important point is that there should be an indication that the title has been edited by a mod, and perhaps also show the original submitter title in the article page.
mpclark 13y ago
So it seems that the problem here is one field trying to do two jobs. It would take a change to the way things are presented, but what about having a title that is the same as the original article, and then another line -- a subtitle, if you will -- that (optionally) can contain the poster's rationale for contributing the link. In this case it could be: Civil Disobedience <small>David Byrne on Aaron Swartz</small>
- zeckalpha 13y ago
  In cases like these "David Byrne: Civil Disobedience" might get past the mods.
  - ynniv 13y ago
    And yet that's still useless.

tankenmate 13y ago

I agree with you in that this is pg's site and his to run as he pleases. I also agree with you that the guideline doesn't always produce desirable outcomes. The issue as I see it is that the sum of parts is more than the whole; if less people of the calibre similar to yourself stop turning up then the site as whole starts to lose its value. Personally it's not enough to turn me away; maybe I have no taste :) Having said that it is a subjective issue and opinions are like farts; everybody's stinks. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

jellicle 13y ago

"Editorialize" is a very different word than, for example, "modify". What the current guidelines actually say is: "Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait." What they SHOULD say is something like "Don't editorialize the titles".

gmac 13y ago
I'm not sure that just this one word 'editorialize' is clear or specific enough, particularly given that a person much more readily identifies an 'editorialized' headline if it's one s/he disagrees with. Perhaps we should add an information criterion? E.g. "Otherwise please use the original title — unless it is linkbait, or misleading (or uninformative) about the content of the article."

stfu 13y ago

I think it is a fair guideline. It is so easy to spin and editorialize issues just by playing a bit around with a few words. It also avoids click baiting as most users probably can tell already by the url in how far a certain medium (...) uses sensationalist headlines. If somebody thinks that there is a different view or a overlooked aspect in a linked submission that is not reflected by the headline it would probably be best to blog about it and resubmit the link to the blog. The policy is public, it is consistently applied to any submission, even if you don't follow it the problem is fixed by an admin. I don't see any issue here that demands that kind of public outrage, let alone some kind of weird formal public letters.