HN Guideline Reminder: Please remove numbers from post titles
Just a gentle reminder that we are encouraged to remove non-meaningful numbers from post titles before submission. I thought this reminder was necessary because of a decent-size group of front-page submissions including top [X] lists, see:
http://skitch.com/sant0sk1/bssdm/hn-lists
From the guidelines page:
'If the original title begins with a number or number + gratuitous adjective, we'd appreciate it if you'd crop it. E.g. translate "10 Ways To Do X" to "How To Do X," and "14 Amazing Ys" to "Ys." Exception: when the number is meaningful, e.g. "The 5 Platonic Solids."'
16 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 51.5 ms ] threadIt just seems less hype-oriented and attention-mongering, similar to how (if I remember correctly) HN automatically removes exclamation points from link titles.
[EDIT: Or maybe I just like that it's quirky and contributes to the particular "voice" of HN, like how the New Yorker's quirky styles for diaereses and acronyms contribute to its particular voice.]
Of course, you could argue that leaving the numbers in informs HN readers about which articles are mere gimmickry rather than carefully written essays.
In fact, in the given example, the non-numbered version of the title sounds like it should be more authoritative. It goes from an interpretation of, "a list of 20 common mistakes," to one of, "a list of /the/ common mistakes." I.e., to me at least, the second option has an implication of being a list of all the common mistakes, while the former implies that this while this is a list of 20 mistakes, there could be more.
It is the adjective ("amazing," "killer," "must-have," etc.) present in the title and NOT the number that conveys authority, completeness, etc.
Perhaps I am the exception, though, and not the rule.
I think this is a bad guideline.
The N in "N ways to" is usually noise, so I can see why the guideline is there.
I've seen it done a staggering 100 million times.