HN’s title “fixer” takes another victim. “Why you should use io_uring for network I/O” is not semantically the same as “Use io_uring for network I/O”. You can’t just swap one out for the other.
In this case the title wasn't linkbait. If it was rewriting the title without rewriting the article wouldn't fix anything for me.
"Why you should" is a linkbait trope, sorry. The use of the pronoun "you" in titles is usually already a linkbait trope because it grabs the user's attention ("hey—you!") in a way that has nothing to do with the content. Headline writers figured this out a long time ago. I'm not saying the OP did it deliberately.
I meant that if an article leads to a poor quality discussion you already have ways to detect that and derank it after the discussion starts going bad.
> "Why you should" is a linkbait trope, sorry.
"Why you should be using io_uring" communicates to me that there will be an argument for why it's better. "Using io_uring" suggests a more neutral article.
> but if we didn't edit titles, the threads would fill up with complaints about titles
In this case I'm assuming the complaints would be that you shouldn't use io_uring because it's bad. Editing the title here only fixed the issue for people who didn't read the article then.
> The way HN edits titles, which has been the case since the beginning, is fundamental to how the site works and what it is.
Fair enough. Thanks for taking the time to explain.
That title edit was obviously not a splash-free dive so you guys clearly have a point.
"Use" is imperative; the title is outright commanding the reader to do this, with the implication that it's simply always the right choice with no tradeoffs. Since very few things in engineering come without tradeoffs, it primes the reader into a combative mood. "You don't get to tell me what to do, Red Hat! For my program, code simplicity and portability matter more than performance, we're not going to use io_uring. You're stupid for suggesting otherwise, and I'm not reading your stupid article."
A "why you should use ..." title has at least some nuance, despite being a clickbait trope. The article will be explaining the benefits of using io_uring for network IO will be useful, and the situations where those benefits actually materialize. But despite being an advocacy piece, it'll also tell you why you should not use it. Either explicitly, or by omission when the stated benefits are irrelevant to you.
The other obvious variants that would work for this article:
1. "Using ..." would promise a tutorial, a formal case study, or an informal account of somebody using it. The bulk of this article is a tutorial, so it'd be pretty reasonable.
2. "Benefits of ..." would be a straight up advocacy piece just like "use" but since it's not written as imperative, it wouldn't antagonize the reader as much.
3. "When should you use ..." would be a neutral review of the pros and cons, with emphasis on the scenarios where the tradeoffs favor each of the alternatives
Keeping the submitted titles as-is by default and rewording with human review would be a better policy
Of course the software gets it wrong sometimes (I've fixed that case now; thanks). But it does more good than harm. The trouble is that everyone takes for granted all the cases where it and/or mods get a change right. If you only count the bad cases (and you can't count what you don't notice!), any approach will seem dumb. What on earth is wrong with those admins!
Side note, i'd pick "Using" instead of "Use"
I've put an "ing" up there now. Thanks!