3 ms·
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, t
by 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 agoI 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.