This was submitted 2 weeks ago [1], with the title "Computer Scientists Create Algorithm That Measures Human Pecking Order", which is appended to the main title for the article. (reached 48 points)
pg has resubmitted this 2 weeks later, using the subtitle of the article, "The way people copy each other's linguistic style reveals their pecking order." (so far 96 points)
Now I'm not nitpicking about credit, I don't care. My question is to what degree is this submission getting more traction from pg's status, and to what degree is it getting more traction due to the linguistic choice of a more specific, better(?) title?
I'd say pg, at least here on HN, is higher up in the pecking order than the person who submitted the article first (llambda).
On the other hand, the subtitle is certainly more descriptive, since computer scientists have been making algorithms to measure human pecking orders for a while, with large companies seeking to build brand confidence by giving away their products to "influential individuals", etc.
This is different than the effect described in the article. The original article contrasts their new work with previous approaches that focus on structural/network effects: who's talking to whom, etc.
I guess what spiked my interest is that your power and/or reputation still affect the linguistic choice of whether to respond at all.