[kareemm]

This title used to read "How Optimizely (Almost) Got Me Fired", which is the actual title of the article.

It seems a mod (?) changed it to "Winning A/B results were not translating into improved user acquisition".

I've seen a descriptive title left by the submitter change back to the less descriptive original by a mod. But I'm curious why a mod would editorialize certain titles and change them away from their original, but undo the editorializing of others and change them to the less descriptive originals.

[dshacker]

I feel that the second title is better, as it talks about the kind of testing they are using, instead of being a click bait of "HOW DID IT GET YOU FIRED?".

[kareemm]

My question is why mods change some headlines away from the originals to be more descriptive (good) and why they change back to the originals even though they are less descriptive (bad).

FWIW the change to this headline seems like the right decision to me.

[dang]

The guideline is to use the original title unless it is misleading or linkbait [1]. It's astonishing how often that qualifier gets dropped from these discussions. It's pretty critical, and makes the reason for most title changes pretty obvious.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[kareemm]

Thanks for the response. I'd humbly submit that there are occasions where the guidelines should be ignored in service of a more descriptive (non-linkbaity) title.

I can't find the submission but one recent example that comes to mind is a presentation on radar detectors that was fascinating. I clicked because the submitter described the article; the original title was (IIRC) the model number of the radar gun.

Later a mod changed the HN post back to the model number, which had zero relevance to anybody not in the radar gun industry.

[ricardobeat]

The original title was clearly linkbait.