I don't understand why sometimes the submitted title must slavishly stick to the original title - otherwise it is considered editorializing - and why sometimes it's OK to change it.
In this case, "The most underrated feature in Python 3" was a fine title. It brought across the excitement of the post's author for this particular feature. I agree, it is a bit link-baity, but a much better version would be "Chaining exceptions is the most underrated feature in Python 3".
The current version ("An underrated feature in Python 3") is extremely nondescript, and I wouldn't have clicked it. It's almost like "A feature in Python 3".
If you object to the use of "most"... the author is obviously using hyperbole. There is no objective measure of "underratedness" of course. I wish people would not take everything so literally, and try to interpret a bit what they read instead. What the author wanted to say was probably (and this is an equally good title): "I really like that Python 3 has chained exceptions!"
Hmm, it's just a figure of speach. "The most underrated feature" -> "I really like this feature and think it deserves more attention."
Just like "the best programming language ever" -> "a programming language I am really excited about, that fits my needs very well".
The hyperbole is not the problem IMO, it's the nondescriptiveness. I think the title should have something about exception handling in it.
The enforcement of the Guidelines has been pretty arbitrary, and quite often good (editorialized) titles have been turned back into something nondescript. Or now the other way around, the original title is editorialized to be less interesting. I think the most important criteria for a title are: does it get across the topic of the link, and the target page author's intention?
In this case, "The most underrated feature in Python 3" was a fine title. It brought across the excitement of the post's author for this particular feature. I agree, it is a bit link-baity, but a much better version would be "Chaining exceptions is the most underrated feature in Python 3".
The current version ("An underrated feature in Python 3") is extremely nondescript, and I wouldn't have clicked it. It's almost like "A feature in Python 3".
If you object to the use of "most"... the author is obviously using hyperbole. There is no objective measure of "underratedness" of course. I wish people would not take everything so literally, and try to interpret a bit what they read instead. What the author wanted to say was probably (and this is an equally good title): "I really like that Python 3 has chained exceptions!"