Sorry for my meta-snark, but:
This is an example of bad editing of the title. The original one was much more descriptive and got to the core of what is interesting about this article. The edit has made the title bland and uninformative.
This is an example of bad editing of the title. The original one was much more descriptive and got to the core of what is interesting about this article. The edit has made the title bland and uninformative.
Mention a small indicator ('*' or '~') below or after a renamed title, clicking on which will show a log of the original title, the name of the admin who made the change and a footnote.
This is a pointless edit: A useful, descriptive, non-sensational / non-opinionated title replaced with something that is just plain worse.
How did this even get started? Too much bitching / derailing about editorialized titles?
Well, the Hacker News guidelines[1] say:
> Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait.
This rule is frequently violated, because a lot of the times the original title is bad. So submitters that are used to reddit re-title the link, sometimes for worse and sometimes for the better.
But HN is pretty strict about the title rule, so they get edited back to the original pretty quickly.
You can make up a new title if you want, but if you put gratuitous editorial spin on it, the editors may rewrite it.
It seems that part has been thrown out the window and rewrites are no longer welcome. A shame.
But those who rewrite the title to something more obviously relevant get decent views even if the submission is re-titled later.
The sad fact is a lot of people who create great content are really, really bad at titles.
Seems like a rule worth changing to me.