[LeegleechN]

The headline is misleading. The work tightened the range of possible strengths of a fifth force by a factor of 10. In other words it ruled out the existence of a fifth force within a wide range of parameters that were previously open.

[kibwen]

Note that the original article's headline is "Groundbreaking Technique Yields Important New Details on Silicon, Subatomic Particles and Possible ‘Fifth Force’" (which is too long for HN), which makes it clear that the focus is on the technique. It's the abbreviated HN title that sort of makes it sound as though the focus is on the force.

[criticaltinker]

It seems like the title length constraint on HN is a bit too limiting and often results in these types of clarifying comments.

Couldn’t we expect more accurate and higher quality titles by relaxing the length constraint? I’m sure it’s been discussed before here, but I’m struggling to think of downsides from such a change.

[simias]

Having short titles where you can't cram a lot of information is a feature IMO, since it means that you generally have to actually open the link and see what it's actually talking about.

I suspect (without having any evidence) that the longest the titles are, the most likely you are to end up with people commenting without having even bothered to open the link.

Which, hypocritically, is what I just did, but admittedly this comment isn't about the article itself.

[snewman]

It's a tradeoff.

In my view, the primary function of the title is to help a viewer understand whether the topic is of interest to them and therefore it is worthwhile to click the link. A more-informative title will better serve this critical function.

If some HN participants are prone to making off-base comments based solely on a title, let's address that directly (e.g. via guidelines + voting), rather than by nerfing the titles. Otherwise we're just throwing up our hands and saying "this is why we can't have nice things". I'd rather work toward having the nice things.

Incidentally, it's not just (or even primarily) about length; an article's "native" title often makes sense only in local context, and thus does not communicate well when seen out-of-context on the HN front page.

[sillysaurusx]

It’s good to make HN users dig for information. HN is designed to gratify intellectual curiosity; it’s the same reason TL;DRs are tolerated but discouraged. Dan has written about this many times over many years — I imagine he might drop by with a few persuasive references.

You’re right, by the way. It would be good if HN was designed solely for growth. It might even have been good in this one case, too. But it’s designed to spark curiosity, which is a much more delicate thing. Most long titles are long because they’re noisy. They don’t usually add precision.

[snewman]

I'm honestly baffled by this argument. Do you click through 100% of the links that reach the front page? More to the point, do you expect/desire that most HN readers should do so? Presumably not; so, we must expect that readers -- no matter how curious -- are exercising some decision algorithm. Why deliberately cripple the input to that algorithm? Shouldn't we trust readers to exercise curiosity even when provided with a good descriptive title?

[saalweachter]

Maybe a different limit for links versus "ask HN"s?

External links have some sort of constraint, weak as it may be. The limit more forces people to editorialize rather than focusing their thoughts toward concisitude.

[richardw]

The front page is a treasure. Many redesigns are attempted and they never work (for me, YMMV). Don’t jiggle what obviously works and everyone is very used to, unless you test the heck out of it.

I read the short headline, and the top comment gave me the clarity I need. As is often the case I don’t need to read the article.

[nl]

It would involve a change to HN.

There's still no mobile friendly stylesheet. I wouldn't hold your breath.

[Cederfjard]

I mostly read HN on my phone and I think the experience is fine. So maybe there’s just not enough demand on that front.

[nl]

> I think the experience is fine

How do you vote without zooming?

Ever tried to touch "comments" on headline and accidentally clicked "hide"?

Ever tried to touch the "Hacker News" menu item and gone to "new"?

Everyone is used to these things, but they are textbook examples of bad mobile design.

[treeman79]

Number of times I’ve logged myself out...

[Filligree]

> How do you vote without zooming?

I press the voting button. Most of the time I vote in the intended direction. I think. If I don't, well, there's no way to know.

[ddingus]

You know, I just quickly zoom with a double tap and nail the UX element.

We have better elements to use, but I must also say those tend to come with costs.

Right now, HN is so lean, fast and clean, I will gladly work a little to vote or do some action in return for what is otherwise one of the best "just read the discussion" presentations on mobile. It's a pleasure.

[kevin_thibedeau]

People have been clamoring for mobile friendly blockquote for a while.

[quietbritishjim]

People abuse the code formatting for block quote. It looks bad on mobile, but it also looks bad on desktop because it's a fixed width Font, which is not what you want for a quote. The solution is not to change the style – it's for people to stop using code style for quotes! (The style does actually seem to have changed on mobile in the last year or so: I think it wraps now, whereas I think it used to have a horizontal scroll bar.)

To quote something else, manually insert a greater than symbol at the start of every quoted paragraph,

> Like this

Which obviously doesn't indent nicely but is perfectly clear, and works well with HN's low formatting style.

[azalemeth]

I personally really like the Android app -- it's an excellent reader, and is my preferred way to interact on mobile.

[reificator]

> There's still no mobile friendly stylesheet. I wouldn't hold your breath.

Beyond code blocks having line wrap, the HN mobile stylesheet seems fine to me. What issue do you take with it?

[nl]

Well there isn't a mobile stylesheet. It's the same as the desktop styling (and that code block issue affects desktop too).

There are multiple issues with using the desktop styling, but most are related to Fitt's law[1].

The whole UI is terrible for finger interactions, but the best example is the tiny upvote/downvote buttons immediately above/below each other well within the diameter of a normal finger. It's literally impossible to use that without zooming, and if you try to then there is no way to know if you vote up or down. It should be used in textbooks for how not to do a mobile interaction.

[1] https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/fitts-...

[pbhjpbhj]

I agree the touch targets are ridiculous, but there is feedback - upvotes make the "unvote" text appear and downvotes make the "undown" text appear.

[reificator]

> It's literally impossible to use that without zooming

Let's keep the discussion honest. I have a high DPI phone screen, I'm at the normal text size for my device, and I regularly use those buttons without zooming with reasonable accuracy.

The hyperbole is not warranted here. While I agree touch targets could be bigger they are certainly not impossible to use reliably.

[systemvoltage]

This is the best thing about HN. Stubborn for change.

[RedShift1]

Is this fifth force something that could disappear with more precise measurements of the known 4 forces?

[garmaine]

There is nothing to disappear. There isn’t a fifth force to within experimental precision. TFA is about an increase in that experimental precision which further reduces the possibility (or at least the magnitude) of any yet undiscovered “fifth force.”

[Out_of_Characte]

The fifth force is already a hypothetical. More precise measurements would make the hypothetical force weaker and weaker.

[vikingerik]

Good point. The details are "constraints on a fifth force if one exists", NOT behavior that indicates it does or might.

[whimsicalism]

If anything, it can be viewed as evidence that this fifth force does not exist - as we can rule out more possibilities.

[daseiner1]

does that logically follow?

[whimsicalism]

Let's say that they've constrained this hypothetical force to have a strength less than 5 doodads.

And then let's say some theoretician comes up with evidence that if a 5th force exists, in order to be consistent with the laws of physics, it must have a strength of more than 6 doodads, for instance.

With the first bit of evidence, we've managed to rule out the existence of a fifth force, which we wouldn't have been able to do if that evidence didn't exist. There is no way to use that piece of evidence to rule in the existence of a fifth force.

[dnautics]

It's not a question of logic but a question of connotation.