I think the parent comment was sarcastic.
Adding a tagline, media friendly name or keywords is unprofessional. Simply, severity is then ranked by how popular the press or security bloggers can market the word, not by the respective severity of the CVE. Its a popularity contest, nothing more.
As someone who deals with every damn sensationalist story at a financial company, having every fucking client phone up about every damn marketoid creation even if it doesn't affect our platform detracts from doing real work.
Let's play their trick:
Its the X Factor of security.
People actually giving a shit about security holes is something we've been wanting for a long time. It beats the hell out of the alternative, something we've been dealing with since the 90s or so!
We do that bit between the CVE being announced and patching ahit, not when the press goes ape shit.
So, that's overrated is it?
Plus, 99% of the time, end users are not directly responsible for patching these issues. So why the focus on mass-media friendly marketing?
Here is what is happening when vulnerabilities get their own brand names, with logos and marketing:
1. Vulnerabilities are implicitly severe if they attract media attention (and only if they attract media attention). I've been featured in the press twice for vulnerabilities. Neither of them were as serious as the least serious, unpublicized vulnerability on this page: https://hackerone.com/internet.
2. It implicitly encourages rating a vulnerability's severity by how much media attention it receives, not by an objective scale.
It's causing a race to the bottom where coordinated disclosure now requires a PR firm, a presskit, a logo, and a brand name. For Heartbleed and Shellshock, sure, they're serious enough for all those hoops. For everything else, the race to the bottom will commoditize these things, making vulnerabilities without them ignored, and confusing vulnerabilities with them as severe.
The final result is that it's just extra, meaningless noise tacked on to vulnerability disclosure that makes it more difficult to achieve, involves more parties and doesn't improve anything.
Between Heartbleed and Shellshock, and now this, a PR firm marketing vulnerabilities like this seems... crass.