3 ms·
I can thin of whole host of reasons that a different title makes sense. Maybe the article's relevant to an ongoing debate on HN, perhaps only a particular detai
by ollysb 13y ago
I can thin of whole host of reasons that a different title makes sense. Maybe the article's relevant to an ongoing debate on HN, perhaps only a particular detail in the article makes it relevant to HN, see comments for others. I can't remember seeing a single occasion where reverting the title has been an improvement. HN is a pretty smart crowd, the evidence is that they're pretty constrained with titles but change them where it makes sense, can't we just be trusted to get on with it?
- roryokane 13y agoSome title changes are bad, but I do remember one title change that was partially good. Someone posted a link to the site http://lobste.rs/ http://lobste.rs/ with a title like "Yehuda Katz creates new Hacker News competitor". But that was factually false - Katz was merely an early user, and was not involved in creating or running Lobsters. The story got what you could consider an unfair amount of attention, since I bet many people clicked on it just because of Katz's name. The mods eventually changed the title to "Lobsters". That failed to convey the relevant information that the site is like HN, but at least it removed the false information about the creator.