←back to thread

The man who killed Google Search?

(www.wheresyoured.at)
1884 points elorant | 2 comments | 23 Apr 24 16:43 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
dang ◴[23 Apr 24 18:29 UTC] No.40135403[source]▶
Anybody have a better title? 'Better' here means (1) less baity; (2) more accurate and neutral; and (3) preferably a representative phrase from the article itself.

"The man who killed Google Search" is too baity. See the 'unless' in https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait"

Edit (since there are objections): I'm not taking a position for or against the article; I haven't read it. This is just bog-standard HN moderation regarding titles. I skimmed the article looking for a representative phrase and couldn't find one on first pass. That is rather unusual and when it happens I sometimes ask the community for help.

Edit 2: since there's no consensus on this I'm just going to reify that fact via the trailing-question-mark trick and call it a day.

replies(9): >>40135446 #>>40135562 #>>40135640 #>>40136157 #>>40136565 #>>40137747 #>>40137760 #>>40139868 #>>40141944 #
guardiangod ◴[23 Apr 24 18:32 UTC] No.40135446[source]▶
That's what the article is arguing though. That a certain individual is 'killing' (not killed yet) Google Search. A different title would be misleading.
replies(1): >>40135853 #
1. dang ◴[23 Apr 24 19:03 UTC] No.40135853[source]▶
Since killing != killed, your comment already shows that the title is misleading.
replies(1): >>40136762 #
2. abtinf ◴[23 Apr 24 20:17 UTC] No.40136762[source]▶
The article is not arguing that the killing is still on going, but that google has already been killed.

"Google" in the title should be read as "culture" or "the heart and soul of Google", not "Google the company".

Possible better title: "The man who destroyed the soul of Google Search"