Hacker News Title Edit Tracker(hackernewstitles.netlify.app) |
Hacker News Title Edit Tracker(hackernewstitles.netlify.app) |
Perhaps a bothersome aspect of title changes is we are not told the reason(s) behind the edits. For example, if an HN reader is emailing the moderator and asking them to change a title, other readers might want to know that, along with knowing what was the original title. Whereas if it is a small correction, like adding "(2019)" to the end, perhaps few readers would really care. Sometimes we can decipher the reason, other times not.
Another bothersome aspect might be the arbitrtary applicaton of title changes. Some titles get changed based on some discernible criteria while others do not despite meeting the same criteria.
It is quite common for HN titles that exactly match the submitted web page's <title> to be subsequently changed to something else after submission, even though HN guidelines state that titles should not be editorialised.
Editorializing is when the submitter uses the title to express the submitter's own point of view about what's important in the article or the story. When we change a title, we're scrupulous about not doing that. We always look for an accurate, neutral title using representative language from the article itself (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).
In first, US surgeons transplant pig heart into human patient
↓
U.S. surgeons transplant pig heart into human patient
in reference to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29882912
It's also probably a lot more consistent than it seems. That doesn't translate into perception, though, because people tend to notice the ones that annoy them. I wrote about this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23954907
In the case of the pig's heart, there is no doubt that it is the first such transplant. Arguably, people know as much and it doesn't need to be pointed out. But it's borderline and with a bit of appreciation of the fact that headlines are creative works just as much as the text, I'd argue for a bit more deference to the people who have probably put a lot more thought into the headline.
I thought it had been submitted more often but I guess it has mostly been mentioned in comments: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
I’m not sure how you’d disambiguate merges that way, as they have the same symptom, but the process isn’t invisible.
> Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.
I don't think that ends up being confusing even though "the original title" could mean HTML element or biggest heading on the page, it works out, we know what you mean. (I think it's usually the biggest visible heading on the page, rather than mostly invisible HTML title element).
Since the guidelines literally do say to usually, if there isn't a reason not to, use, or at least start with, the original title... I agree it would be helpful if the submit form had an option to pre-fill the "title" field with the original title scraped from the article, like reddit does. You can always edit it before submission, it's just a pre-filled convenience. Which is how reddit UI works.
I think this would be a convenience to those following the guidelines (which totally tell you to start with the original title!), plus perhaps increase compliance with the guidelines by making it the path of least resistance.
On the other hand, it may reasonably not be the highest priority for development, I know you have a backlog. But I don't follow the argument that it would be counter-productive or impossible.
javascript:window.location=%22http://news.ycombinator.com/submitlink?u=%22+encodeURIComponent(document.location)+%22&t=%22+encodeURIComponent(document.title)
Why not let people make up their own minds. The source of the article or story chooses a title; it is their right to do so. Readers may or may not agree with that choice, and they are free to point out where they believe it may be misleading or "linkbait". What is the harm in allowing readers to draw their own conclusions. By changing the title, that process of review by a variety of readers is prevented. Why not let readers be independent thinkers.
The whole point of HN's approach to titles is to let people make up their own minds. The title is by far the most important influence on a thread. Nothing else comes close. Letting submitters rewrite titles to suit their own point of view amounts to conferring the power to control the entire discussion, or at least strongly influence it. On HN, being the person to submit an article does not convey any particular authority over the content.
HN's moderation practice around titles has been well established for over a decade. Accurate, neutral titles, preferably using representative language from the article itself, are probably the single biggest thing that keeps this site the way it is.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29879165
but the mods did this one:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29879184
Peter's tool doesn't tend to pick up software edits because most of those happen on submission, which is before the tool picks them up.
I think the current approach, in which we don't publish everything we do but are happy to answer specific questions when people ask them, is the right balance.