←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: 0.507s | 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 #
Jasper_ ◴[23 Apr 24 21:49 UTC] No.40137747[source]▶
> I'm not taking a position for or against the article; I haven't read it.

If you haven't read it, why are you in a position to suggest whether the title is accurate to the article's contents or not?

replies(2): >>40137779 #>>40138007 #
1. davidgerard ◴[23 Apr 24 21:52 UTC] No.40137779[source]▶
This implies that posting a multi-paragraph comment on an article without bothering to read it, as dang did here, is the standard that HN should aspire to going forward.
replies(1): >>40138033 #
2. dang ◴[23 Apr 24 22:18 UTC] No.40138033[source]▶
I didn't post about the article. I posted about how to moderate the title on HN, which is my job, and which does not require reading every article*, though it does require skimming some of them.

* Moderation would be impossible if it did.