Hacker News Reader

Comment by ColinWright | Hacker News Reader

So the title is "How My Mom Got Hacked" and the only thing it actually says about that actual title is:

    The virus is thought to infiltrate your computer
    when you click on a legitimate-looking attachment
    or through existing malware lurking on your hard
    drive, ...

So, there's really nothing about how his mom got hacked.

Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting article, interesting to read about the process that ensues once you've been hacked, and I've up-voted it, but I'm disappointed not to see anything about how it happened.

View on HN

Jesus. The publisher is the New York Times, writing a story about a real threat to ordinary people. It's not a great headline, but neither is it really misleading either. It effectively communicates what the article is about to SNYT readers.

Apparently anything that is not 100% dull now is clickbait.

It's not about being dull, or exciting, and it's not about click-bait or otherwise. It's about accuracy, reporting, and expectations. The heading was "How My Mom Got Hacked" so I expected to see something about how her mom got hacked.

But I didn't. It was a great story about what happened after her mom got hacked, and it was interesting, and mildly engaging, but it simply wasn't what it said.

Calling it something like "Paying the hackers" or something like that would have been accurate and just as intriguing.

Is it too much to ask reporters to title the article with something that actually refers to what is in it?

Yes! Reporters usually don't get to write their own headlines.

(you can swap in "publications" without really changing what you meant, but I guess it's fair to not blame reporters)

Is it too much to ask that you use some imagination rather than blandly parse a headline?

Sorry, but I really don't understand that comment. I read the article, and commented that the title doesn't match the content. In what sense do you then claim that I've just blandly parsed a headline?

It's a common title structure; I don't see anything clickbaity about it. It should be interpreted as "the story of my mom getting hacked".

Think "How I Met Your Mother", which has little to do with the mechanics of Ted meeting his future wife, but rather the story surrounding it.

How my mom caught a virus that encrypted her personal files - would be a more appropriate title imho.

But anyway after reading the article it's clear what happened. Evil mail attachement --> infection.

> How my mom caught a virus that encrypted her personal files

Just as bad if you ask me. There's still nothing about how she caught it.

Yeah ok, leave out the "how" then ;-)

What do you call the opposite of clickbait? I thought the article was more interesting than I originally expected.

I'm not sure it's really relevant. There's countless ways for normal users to be infected.

This may sound cliche, but click-bate articles truly are plaguing the nation

How is this click-bate?

It might be considered clickbait since the story barely touches (and never actually answers) the how of the headline (i.e. using a somewhat sensationalist headline to increase clicks).

How her mom. Well read.

Thank you. I read the article in some detail, I didn't read the author's name. The author's gender is not evident from the text of the item.

For what it's worth, I found your comment somewhat snarky.

"... and about dispatching her daughter to the Coin Cafe A.T.M. at the 11th hour."

I agree about the snarkiness though.

True enough - by that stage I'd given up reading word by word and was skimming, so I missed it - well spotted.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com