[huhtenberg]

This guideline has been ruining HN discussions for a very long time. There should be a way for a submitter to explain why the submission is relevant and what is offered as a discussion topic. The only place to do that is in the title. And the solution has been suggested a million times - keep both the original and moderated titles and let people choose which one to see - any plans to implement something along these lines, preferably soon?

PS. Just look at this very submission. "Algorithms ..." version would've made me read through the linked page, because it clearly identifies the relevant part of it. But seeing the "Nurses ..." title and skimming through the opener makes me think that this is some sort of US-specific content that just happens to be of a great local importance.

[dang]

You say "ruining"; I say it's one of the best design decisions PG ever made and that it plays a critical role in establishing the character of this site, which is to focus relentlessly on content, keep distortions and spin to a minimum, and ask readers to engage with articles for themselves.

> The only place to do that is in the title.

That's obviously untrue. You can post a comment to the thread.

> the solution has been suggested a million times

There are countless suggestions, but rarely for the same thing, let alone "the solution".

> any plans to implement something along these lines, preferably soon?

I doubt it, because the guideline is exactly in line with the values of this site, as I described above. Any proposed change needs to take that into account. Very few do. For example, you seem not to consider it.

I spend a lot of time thinking about the quality of the front page and, in my opinion, few things would make it worse than opening titles to editorial spin. It would certainly change HN dramatically, and almost certainly disastrously.

> Just look at this very submission

Indeed. The rewritten title was a severe distortion. The story is a campaign by a trade association to protect its interests. "Algorithms destroying medical care" hits the trifecta of a bad title rewrite: it's editorial spin, it's linkbait, and it's misleading [1]. It's a sensational claim that requires evidence to establish, which the existence of a political campaign falls far short of. (I'm personally sympathetic with the campaign, if that matters.)

As long as we're talking about this, it should really be pointed out that I posted a comment saying that we'd reverted the title and what the submitted title was. It's reasonable for people to want to see a trail of what was changed; for now, we've been posting those at the bottom of the threads.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7797166.

[dfc]

Second best design decision: active, involved and highly visible moderator.

I think dang's efforts have made things a lot better around here. The two biggest visible changes are the title change notices and the reminders that acting like a decent human being is a prerequisite for commenting. I cheer every time I see one of the "we changed the title from X to Y" posts. I wish the reminders were not neccessary but I think they are a lot better for the community in the long run than anonymous downvotes with no explanation. I like to think of the reminders as "sit down and shut up you little twit messages" but of course dang keeps it a lot classier and also finds a way to educate the rest of the community:

  > Comments like this are not allowed on Hacker News. We ban people
  > for this, especially when they don't have a history as a positive
  > contributor here. Please don't do it again.
  >
  > All: When you see a comment that is truly egregious, you can flag
  > it by clicking "link" to go to the item page and then "flag" at the
  > top. We monitor those flags and take action based on them.

[huhtenberg]

Jeez, Daniel. You obviously has a strong opinion on this subject and you are simply not listening. What I mentioned is a simple solution to a major (if not the) moderation issue that HN has that will work for everyone. What you are defending is an approach that works for some cases, but fail in many.

  <edit>

For one, by editing a submission title you are effectively putting words in submitter's mouth. That in itself is already an ethically questionable practice. I had a title on my Tell HN post changed and I was absolutely totally pissed by that. If you change a title, then do everyone a favor and put your own name next to it.

For two, I happen to actually care for what particular angle the submitter had in mind when posting a link. This is not a Reuters, this is a discussion place and every discussion has a starting point. You change "Algorithms" to "Nurses", you change the point. You do it halfway through the discussion - congratulations, you just f#cked up the whole discussion. This is what I meant by "ruining". Who the hell cares about eventual consistency of HN archives if one can't readily understand the context of what's actually people are talking about now.

  </edit>

Try this - say, HN adds an option of keeping the original title. Let's further assume this is not a default. Can you please explain how did you arrive at "It would change HN dramatically, and almost certainly disastrously"?

[MaulingMonkey]

> For one, by editing a submission title you are effectively putting words in submitter's mouth.

If that's the case, isn't editorializing the title putting words in the mouth of the article writer?

[huhtenberg]

No, of course not.

[Houshalter]

I completely agree but in this case the title was sensationalist. There is only one sentence mentioning algorithms and it doesn't have any substance.

[nrjones8]

I submitted the title with reference to an audio recording that is linked to on the page, having originally heard it played on the radio:

http://nationalnursesunited.org/page/-/files/audilo/iorn-rad...

Rather than linking directly to the mp3 file, I figured posting the whole article would give more context.