[mapreduce]

Is this type of comments really in the spirit of HN discussions? From HN guidelines:

> Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage.

I find this type of comments in many articles which goes like "I thought this article would be X but turned out to be Y". Sure you thought that! Sometimes the title does not tell the full story to everyone. Sometimes it does. It would be nice if it always did. But there is ambiguity in natural languages.

[avgcorrection]

It’s not tangential. Technologists seem to be equally drawn to any arbitrary dictionary word, which is why these problems come up again and again.

I thought the same thing until I remembered that there’s this concatenative something that is called Joy.

Some authors just shamelessly admit that they clickbaited. Then implicitly give themselves a well-played and ask you what you think about the submission.

But it’s a moot point anyway as long as the moderators don’t allow “editorializing”. (EDIT: editorializing makes sense since this title wouldn’t be clickbait on a conc. programming blog but on a news aggregator it gets confusing.)

[Cheer2171]

So I can't call out clickbait titles that seem intentionally deceptive? Less of a name collision and more of a name 'drive my car off a bridge for clicks'.

[JadeNB]

The language is well over a decade, and, though my memory fails me, probably more like two decades old; the associated files were originally hosted on the creator's university web site, but he has since passed away. It was a product of the naming pattern of its time, not of any attempt at clickbait.

[mapreduce]

Frankly nothing about this title seems clickbaity to me. The word "Joy" can be ambiguous here is the real issue.