zlacker

>>lkrubn+(OP)
Actual title: Amazon has absolutely no idea how to run an app store

Why did the title change? It used to be the same as the original article, but now it's been needlessly editorialized to be kinder to amazon. Seriously? What the fuck. That's not HN's job, and is a disservice to the article, and the community.

>>meeste+2v
The HN Guidelines [1] state that submissions "should use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait." While I am sure the emotions of the developers affected by this are legitimate and strong, the original title borders pretty heavily on linkbait; though I appreciate there is some debate there.

HN may strive to provide intellectually superior content, but that doesn't make me any less susceptible to linkbait.

For one, I appreciate some effort to prevent the front page of HN from devolving into 30 completely unedited, but completely unhelpful titles. If I wanted that, I would just read ads.

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

>>vennin+4A
IMO, "these people don't know what they're doing" isn't linkbait, it's a very specific criticism that the people in charge of the app store are either naive or incompetent. You could complain that's a pretty harsh take, but the truth of the statement has nothing to do with the harshness of it, it lies in the evidence they provide. You can even test it! Do they make good decisions or poor decisions?

I think there's a lot more "editorializing" going on by inserting an implicit excuse into the title, that wasn't asked for and wasn't needed.

>>overga+gB
I think it is precisely that harshness that pushes the original title towards linkbait. Again, I'm not questioning the legitimacy of the involved developers' emotions.

The point of a linkbait title is to elicit an emotional response that is disproportionately strong compared to that of the actual content. As such, they are worded strongly.

I agree that "relatively new" was a bad emendation. I probably just would have removed "absolutely" from the original title and left it at that.

>>vennin+IB
I've always believed that "linkbait" is a MIDLEADING title or one that omits key information only to force you to click on an otherwise uninteresting title.

Linkbait: "You won't believe the disgusting thing this A-list star did in public!"

Non-linkbait version: "Tom Cruise accidentally stepped in dog poo."

The first is linkbait because it teases you to learn who the star is and what was the disgusting act (which was actually quite boring).

--

Linkbait: "This company sucks at app stores!"

Non-linkbait: "Amazon sucks at app stores!"

The first is linkbait because it forces you to click to learn which company it's talking about. It would most likely make the reader think it's about Apple, or maybe Google Play Store, both of which are probably more interesting than Amazon's store. The second title is NOT linkbait because even though it's inflammatory, it conveys enough information to let the reader decide whether it's worth a click. The reader immediately knows:

* It's about Amazon app store.

* It's going to be very negative.

If the HN reader is interested in how Amazon's app store is doing and how users are reacting, then it will stand out as a link worth clicking. If the HN reader doesn't care for an opinion about amazon's store, or doesn't want to read a strongly-worded one, they'll pass. There was no baiting at all.

---

I argue that the editorializing of the article created MORE of a problem, because it wiped away an important piece of information for HN readers: that this is a strongly-worded negative review. The edited title ("Amazon is relatively new..") conveys no information about the article. Frankly, it now sounds like a very dumb article.