Thanks for the feedback, Dang. As head moderator, I take your perspective very seriously.
I understand that rewriting titles to make them more sensational is definitely undesired. We want titles that accurately reflect the article.
With that in mind, I have a question. Sometimes the most salient aspect of an article from a HN perspective is not mentioned in the title. This often happens because a NYTimes title has to be less technical for their readers. Thus, they title the article more broadly but the actual content can be a much more specific perspective.
In the case of this article, the real focus is how collaboration in the open source community often lacks the structure required for ensuring code quality.
Given that the average HN reader is starkly different from the average NYTimes reader, why isn't is sometimes appropriate to change the title to reflect these differences in technical knowledge or perspective?
Consider that it makes Dan's job easier. (And it is a hard job.) Evaluating the question, "Is the normal title for this article too generic and is the user-created title not sensationalistic and is the user-created title accurate?" is much more taxing than "Does the submission title match the article?" It also requires more judgement, which people will sometimes disagree with.
Sometimes it's just easier to have simple rules; there's less surface area for judgement. If there's a particular part of the article that you find interesting, and you want to point it out, then comment on the submission after submitting it.
What you're describing is almost a definition of editorializing which you're asked not to do, in titles. The readers can figure it out themselves. Additionally you can comment on the thread yourself and point out parts you think are particularly salient.
5 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 16.4 ms ] threadI understand that rewriting titles to make them more sensational is definitely undesired. We want titles that accurately reflect the article.
With that in mind, I have a question. Sometimes the most salient aspect of an article from a HN perspective is not mentioned in the title. This often happens because a NYTimes title has to be less technical for their readers. Thus, they title the article more broadly but the actual content can be a much more specific perspective.
In the case of this article, the real focus is how collaboration in the open source community often lacks the structure required for ensuring code quality.
Given that the average HN reader is starkly different from the average NYTimes reader, why isn't is sometimes appropriate to change the title to reflect these differences in technical knowledge or perspective?
Sometimes it's just easier to have simple rules; there's less surface area for judgement. If there's a particular part of the article that you find interesting, and you want to point it out, then comment on the submission after submitting it.