5 ms·

To whoever changed the submission title, the whole point of this post has now been lost. Just cut it out already.

by smegel 13y ago

lfuller 13y ago
What was the original title? I really don't get it.
- charonn0 13y ago
  "Microsoft's forgotten subdomain" or words to that effect.
dang 13y ago
I changed the title because it violated the HN guidelines about titles: it editorialized, it was linkbait (Microsoft's forgotten subdomain!), and it was misleading (how do we know what Microsoft forgot? how do we know there aren't many of them?). HN calls for people to make up their own minds about content. It's not for the submitter to spin "the point" for everybody. Other websites allow that; HN does not. In my view, that is one of the best decisions PG ever put into the design of this site. It's controversial only because people don't notice all the good it does, which is enormous: it's one of the biggest factors in the quality of the front page. the whole point of this post has now been lost I disagree. It doesn't take much to see that this is a legacy Microsoft website that is still up. HN's title policy does lead to hard calls sometimes, but this wasn't really one of them.
- andybak 13y ago
  > I changed the title because it violated every HN guideline about titles: > it editorialized Only in the sense that the title was both the crucial to the content. > it was misleading I really don't understand why you think so. > and it was linkbait. Then the whole post should have deleted. Changing the title made it completely pointless. > It doesn't take much to see that this is a legacy Microsoft website that is still up. It really does. I was baffled until I read the comments. > Please don't be rude to other users on Hacker News, even if they're a moderator. I don't feel 'cut it out' could be deemed rude by any reasonable standard.
  - dang 13y ago
    Ok, I'll take out the last bit about rudeness since it was at worst a borderline case and a distraction anyway. I'm also going to follow your suggestion and bury this post, since there's little if anything of substance here.
- jevinskie 13y ago
  I tend to agree with andybak's points but is is such a nice change of pace to see more transparent moderation. Thank you for the explanation.
  - dang 13y ago
    You're welcome. I'm glad to hear it's helping. Maybe someday we'll even persuade you. :)
- smegel 13y ago
  This rule is fine for blogs where each article had an overt title that can be (and should be) referred to. However, for simply linking to arbitrary websites, the "title" is often meaningless and does not convey the purpose of the submission. In these cases, I would argue that the title is part of the submission, and should not be messed with (unless it breaks other rules regarding spam, trolling, linkbait etc). Just my 2c...
  - dang 13y ago
    I see the point and yes, those cases tend to be where the harder calls come up. If you watch closely, you'll find that we're more flexible than it sometimes seems we are. Our bedrock principle, though, is focus on content. The first person to submit an item doesn't get special rights to frame it for everybody. The content is what it is [1]. On HN, the submitter doesn't get to speak for the author; he or she is a reader like the rest of us. The level playing field that HN's title policy creates is something it took me a long time to appreciate, so I get why it's not obvious. But the neutral, self-effacing quality we get by sticking close to original titles (unless they're misleading or linkbait) is a bit part of keeping the front page good. [1] Yeah, I know it's all constructed and authorship is a myth—I did my time in grad school.
Angostura 13y ago
Annoying, isn't? I presume it falls victim to the over-strict interpretation of this rule: > Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait. I had a similar problem with this submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7561847 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7561847 Which I think I originally titled something along the lines of "Proof of Concept code shows clients are vulnerable to HeartBleed" or something like that - since the discussion actually showed a link to some PoC code. It was renamed back to the anodyne "What clients are proven to be vulnerable to Heartbleed?"

To whoever changed the submission title, the whole point of this post has now been lost. Just cut it out already.

by smegel 13y ago

To whoever changed the submission title, the whole point of this post has now been lost. Just cut it out already.

lfuller 13y ago

What was the original title? I really don't get it.

charonn0 13y ago
"Microsoft's forgotten subdomain" or words to that effect.

dang 13y ago

I changed the title because it violated the HN guidelines about titles: it editorialized, it was linkbait (Microsoft's forgotten subdomain!), and it was misleading (how do we know what Microsoft forgot? how do we know there aren't many of them?). HN calls for people to make up their own minds about content. It's not for the submitter to spin "the point" for everybody. Other websites allow that; HN does not. In my view, that is one of the best decisions PG ever put into the design of this site. It's controversial only because people don't notice all the good it does, which is enormous: it's one of the biggest factors in the quality of the front page. the whole point of this post has now been lost I disagree. It doesn't take much to see that this is a legacy Microsoft website that is still up. HN's title policy does lead to hard calls sometimes, but this wasn't really one of them.

andybak 13y ago
> I changed the title because it violated every HN guideline about titles: > it editorialized Only in the sense that the title was both the crucial to the content. > it was misleading I really don't understand why you think so. > and it was linkbait. Then the whole post should have deleted. Changing the title made it completely pointless. > It doesn't take much to see that this is a legacy Microsoft website that is still up. It really does. I was baffled until I read the comments. > Please don't be rude to other users on Hacker News, even if they're a moderator. I don't feel 'cut it out' could be deemed rude by any reasonable standard.
- dang 13y ago
  Ok, I'll take out the last bit about rudeness since it was at worst a borderline case and a distraction anyway. I'm also going to follow your suggestion and bury this post, since there's little if anything of substance here.
jevinskie 13y ago
I tend to agree with andybak's points but is is such a nice change of pace to see more transparent moderation. Thank you for the explanation.
- dang 13y ago
  You're welcome. I'm glad to hear it's helping. Maybe someday we'll even persuade you. :)
smegel 13y ago
This rule is fine for blogs where each article had an overt title that can be (and should be) referred to. However, for simply linking to arbitrary websites, the "title" is often meaningless and does not convey the purpose of the submission. In these cases, I would argue that the title is part of the submission, and should not be messed with (unless it breaks other rules regarding spam, trolling, linkbait etc). Just my 2c...
- dang 13y ago
  I see the point and yes, those cases tend to be where the harder calls come up. If you watch closely, you'll find that we're more flexible than it sometimes seems we are. Our bedrock principle, though, is focus on content. The first person to submit an item doesn't get special rights to frame it for everybody. The content is what it is [1]. On HN, the submitter doesn't get to speak for the author; he or she is a reader like the rest of us. The level playing field that HN's title policy creates is something it took me a long time to appreciate, so I get why it's not obvious. But the neutral, self-effacing quality we get by sticking close to original titles (unless they're misleading or linkbait) is a bit part of keeping the front page good. [1] Yeah, I know it's all constructed and authorship is a myth—I did my time in grad school.

Angostura 13y ago

Annoying, isn't? I presume it falls victim to the over-strict interpretation of this rule: > Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait. I had a similar problem with this submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7561847 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7561847 Which I think I originally titled something along the lines of "Proof of Concept code shows clients are vulnerable to HeartBleed" or something like that - since the discussion actually showed a link to some PoC code. It was renamed back to the anodyne "What clients are proven to be vulnerable to Heartbleed?"