[1vuio0pswjnm7]

One could add "(2019)" to the end of it.

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.

[dang]

The guideline also includes when titles should be changed: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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...).

[1vuio0pswjnm7]

Under this definition of "editorialize", instances where someone else besides the submitter uses, i.e., changes, the title to express their own point of view about what's important in the article or the story are not examples of editorializing.

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.

[dang]

I don't understand your first paragraph.

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.

[floatingatoll]

Ultimately, the title rules cannot be coded into programming logic and fully documented; they’re a mix of predictable (No Studly Caps) algorithms, submitter’s edits, and moderator’s edits. Human judgment calls are expected - for example, titles should be edited to be succinct when necessary, but never to present the submitter’s opinion. Criteria will not always be applied consistently, each submitter and moderator is a different person, and not everything is seen and fixed when it’s slightly or greatly wrong.