4 ms·
This title is more than a little ridiculous. It's rather annoying to have to click on the link to have literally any context for what the post is about. Great
by chimeracoder 13y ago
This title is more than a little ridiculous.
It's rather annoying to have to click on the link to have literally any context for what the post is about. Great for driving up pageviews, but that's beyond even HuffPo/Gawker levels of linkbait.
It's even worse than "Worse"[0] - even after reading the post, the word "And" has next to no descriptive power, except perhaps in a vague metaphorical sense ("I added some code, so it's the old code and the new one").
EDIT: Looks like this is the author's idea of "trolling": https://twitter.com/marcoarment/status/445375836343271424 https://twitter.com/marcoarment/status/445375836343271424
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7405846 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7405846
- arrrg 13y agoI don’t think you know how click bait works. For that you actually need a descriptive headline (i.e. one that actually says something) but then you use exaggeration or selective reporting and maybe question marks (or outright untruths) to make that headline appealing. This headline is emphatically not click bait. It just doesn’t say anything and wouldn’t lead anyone to click on it. If you think that headline helps driving up views then I really can’t help you. Why would you ever think something so ridiculous? As you already figured out, this headline is a reaction to the completely bonkers top-comment yesterday whining about the headline of Worse. You are talking about a private blog here and not using descriptive headlines is a HN problem, not a private blog problem. Not every author has to bend to the whims of some link collection site and use headlines that fit that site. It’s really as simple as that.
- AndreiVajnaII 13y agoThe motivation for the title is specified right in the article.