3 ms·
Many comments herein make good cases for changed titles. Titles are extremely important as they are the content of the front page, and along with rank are how w
by eevilspock 13y ago
Many comments herein make good cases for changed titles. Titles are extremely important as they are the content of the front page, and along with rank are how we users decide what to read.
Here's a solution:
1. Allow submitter to optionally change the title.
2. Use the changed title, but on the comments page display
the original title near it.
3. Display up/down-vote buttons next to both titles.
4. Dynamically swap titles based on (Karma-weight?) votes.
In other words, let the community drive the moderation as it already does for other things. It's imperfect as there is still a first submitter advantage, but it will work at least 80% of the time for 20% of the complexity.
- derefr 13y agoAnother solution: 1. Allow submitters to submit with whatever title they want, but pull the //title from the page anyway, just to store it. 2. Add an option beside the article (maybe visible only on the expanded view of the article-abstract that appears on the comments page) called "flag title". If a few people click this, the title is automatically reverted to the retrieved+stored version. This way, the people who do "read every article on HN" will be made responsible for deciding what is, or is not, editorializing -- but instead of giving them unlimited power to change the title, they may only reset it to the "true" title. I think that provides the proper balance of incentives.
- eevilspock 13y agoYou're approach works too and I'd think HN would do better by either. My variation considers the case where the original is worse than the imperfect submitted one.
- danmaz74 13y agoThis looks like a very good solution. If enough users will actually care to vote for the title.
- eevilspock 13y agoif not many people vote, then there's no problem, right?
- danmaz74 13y agomaybe