[MichaelGG]

I wouldn't be interested in readinh an article called "I how I almost saved the Internet" as it sounds like the kinda stuff Wired or those tech blog/news sites publish.

This new title, however, is far more interesting and the article was fantastic.

[jallmann]

> I wouldn't be interested in readinh an article called "I how I almost saved the Internet"

The old title was "how I nearly almost saved the Internet starring afl-fuzz and dnsmasq"

That title gives enough detail to be interesting while still being a bit cheeky -- and the article itself is a bit cheeky. That cheekiness makes the article all the more fantastic, IMO.

The current title of "Finding a vulnerability in dnsmasq using afl-fuzz," while a factually accurate description, reads like a dry research paper.

Anyway, there are situations where changing the title is appropriate. I just don't think this was one of them.

[dang]

Ok, you've made a strong enough case that we'll set the title back. It isn't that linkbaity, because "nearly almost" is clearly self-deprecating, and it won't hurt the front page to let the author's cheerfulness through.

[JadeNB]

For what it's worth, my response would be that, if you want to decide whether or not to read posts based on their titles, then you want to see the original titles, linkbait-y or not; seeing a toned-down version will just 'trick' you into reading something you wouldn't have otherwise. On the other hand, since you are glad that you read it, maybe that's an argument against deciding whether or not to read based solely on the title.