[tomhow]

It's not about the size of the number or improvement; we do the same thing when the number is "10,000%", which is not unusual in the titles we see here.

The problem with these kinds of titles – and this is no comment on this particular article (I haven't checked, because it's irrelevant) – is that sometimes writers will put a figure in the title that was achieved in a one-off result under very specific/unusual conditions, whereas the realistic improvement under more normal conditions is like 20% or 50% – still great, just not what the title claimed.

Then when that happens, the discussion becomes dominated by comments pointing that out and debating the validity of the tests and results – even if the article does a good job of revealing those details.

We've found we can reduce that effect by taking the numbers out of the title altogether.