zlacker

>>Charle+(OP)
I understand that sometimes the HN titles get edited to be less descriptive and more generic in order to match the actual article title.

What’s the logic with changing the title here from the actual article title it was originally submitted with “AV1 — Now Powering 30% of Netflix Streaming” to the generic and not at all representative title it currently has “AV1: a modern open codec”? That is neither the article title nor representative of the article content.

>>notato+ik
Amen. The mania for obscurity in titles here is infuriating. This one is actually replete with information compared to many you see on the front page.

>>Verifi+om
If there really was a “mania for obscurity in titles” we’d see a lot more complaints than we do.

Our title policy is pretty simple and attuned for maximum respect to the post’s author/publisher and the HN audience.

We primarily just want to retain the title that was chosen by the author/publisher, because it’s their work and they are entitled to have such an important part of their work preserved.

The only caveat is that if the title is baity or misleading, we’ll edit it, but only enough that it’s no longer baity or misleading. That’s because clickbait and misleading titles are disrespectful to the audience.

Any time you see a title that doesn’t conform to these principles, you’re welcome to email us and ask us to review it. Several helpful HN users do this routinely.