[ci5er]

Gotcha. That makes sense. Thank you.

> It's common to provide the year of publication if it isn't current as some additional metadata.

I haven't seen that elsewhere (on other sites), except in posting bibliographies, and where it is common, I've seen title-author-publication-date as a bundle. It's not in the HN Guidelines; has this become a community thing? Is it considered (by the community members) helpful?

[grzm]

has this become a community thing? Is it considered (by the community members) helpful?

Yes to both. If it weren't, I doubt members would continue the practice. I find it useful to know that it may be something I've come across in the past. It also puts it in some context.

[crististm]

Have you considered this may be a form of cargo-cult?

This editorializing of the titles is similar to communities that have higher-ups that are equal-but-more-so (mods) that suddenly because of their status decide that their view must be the right one.

Mods adding the (publication year) is exactly like saying "hey, I've kind of read this, it's kind of old and you may (not) be interested in it because it's <years old>. I have no idea of the real value of the text but the year may give you a clue". Please don't.

I don't have any issues with original submitter doing this.

[grzm]

I personally find it useful for the reasons I gave above. Given that other members of the community sometimes complain that submissions aren't new or current, I think it's likely useful to them as well. Submission titles are also changed for other reasons in keeping with the guidelines, such as please use the original title, unless it is misleading or link bait.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Similarly, the "[pdf]" and "[video]" tags are included in the guidelines:

If you submit a link to a video or pdf, please warn us by appending [video] or [pdf] to the title.

It sounds like you don't find it useful, which is fair enough. Do you find it harmful or misleading in some way? If so, how so?

Edit to add: Parent updated with additional rationale:

Mods adding the (publication year) is exactly like saying "hey, I've kind of read this, it's kind of old and you may (not) be interested in it because it's <years old>. I have no idea of the real value of the text but the year may give you a clue".

I think you're reading too much into it. For me, it just puts the post into chronological context. It doesn't give me the impression that it's any less worthwhile to read. In some cases, the year provides additional interest, particularly if it's older.

[crististm]

I understand complaints for "not new or current" if the reader is expecting hacker _news_. But unless the expectations changed too much in last years this site is not necessarily about _news_ as it is about _information_.

If the link is worth it then the year is irrelevant. If it's not worth it, the year won't save it. Thus, adding the year just satisfies our appetite for novelty.

[Bjartr]

>Thus, adding the year just satisfies our appetite for novelty.

The reverse for me, a link that's still interesting despite the intervening years is one I'm more likely to click.

[detaro]

It often helps to answer "I've seen something with this title before. Is this the thing I know already, or something new?" without clicking the link.