10 ms·
You know, it seems like the solution here is to be able to distinguish the original title and the submitter's commentary about the title. To borrow from another
by j_baker 13y ago
You know, it seems like the solution here is to be able to distinguish the original title and the submitter's commentary about the title. To borrow from another comment in this post, something like:
A new beginning
...could become:
A new beginning (PHP elects new leader)
It's tempting to say "Titles shouldn't include commentary", but I think that there are valid times where the submitter should submit commentary. Otherwise, we just end up rewarding people for duplicating the same content with a more linkbaity title. You can imagine a techcrunch article that just quotes the original, but has the title "PHP Implodes as Leader Steps Down".
- lowboy 13y agoI like this, if there was some way of visually distinguishing submitter addition (make it lighter, italic, etc) so we know if a parenthetical is from the site or from the submitter.
- trendspotter 13y agoI really like your idea. I suggest that HN shows the original title first and in a second "sub-headline" in italic letters the "commentary" headline by the submitter. Like: A new beginning *PHP elects new leader* After thinking about it, here is a even better solution: Let titles allow to be flagged by the community. Example below: submission X by kdzsb 22 minutes ago | flag title | flag discussion | 9 comments Moderators would simply edit flagged bad titles. Rather than having them to watch all titles (old rules) or no titles at all (new rules).