zlacker

[parent] [thread] 2 comments
1. tomhow+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-12-05 09:06:37
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.

replies(1): >>Verifi+5B4
2. Verifi+5B4[view] [source] 2025-12-06 20:00:33
>>tomhow+(OP)
No, because people who point out obscure titles are downvoted in most cases, and eventually shadow-banned. So those voices are silenced here.

"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."

Nobody said the title had to be deleted. But when it doesn't convey WHAT the "thing" is, it needs augmentation. Currently on page 4 there's an example that not only conveys nothing, but DOESN'T respect the actual title you find on the linked page. The HN post is entitled merely "tunni.gg".

But if you click on that, you get to a page that says, "Expose localhost to the internet." But the poster couldn't be bothered to put that important and interesting information in the title. Instead, the title is worthless.

You see plenty of similarly and intentionally obscure titles on HN daily. Try calling them out and see what happens.

replies(1): >>tomhow+Zf5
◧◩
3. tomhow+Zf5[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-07 02:45:18
>>Verifi+5B4
I don't know where you get the idea that the moderators or the community are such unreasonable tyrants about this!

> people who point out obscure titles are downvoted in most cases, and eventually shadow-banned

Nothing like this happens! Nobody gets banned for pointing out anything about titles. People only get banned ("shadow" or otherwise) for serial abuse or trolling (and only after multiple warnings), or for spamming. Comments only get downvoted if more people disagree than agree with the title suggestion or the way it's suggested. It's no big deal. It's how opinions are expressed and debated on HN.

> The HN post is entitled merely "tunni.gg".

That's Tunnl.gg [1], and it would have been fine for the page's heading to be added to the HN title (that routinely happens when software projects on Github are submitted). It's also not terrible for just the project name to be there, because the name of the project (a variant of the word "Tunnel") hints at what it is. But we're not dogmatic about it, and anybody could have emailed us (hn@ycombinator.com) to suggest a better title we would have given it due consideration and replied appreciatively. We do that multiple times each day.

> You see plenty of similarly and intentionally obscure titles on HN daily. Try calling them out and see what happens.

“Intentionally obscure” isn't the right framing. Maybe we don't always want to clobber people over the head with obviousness. The joy of surprising discovery is an important part of the HN experience.

But the key principles – (a) respecting the original work of the author/publisher and (b) don't mislead or disrespect the HN audience with clickbait or false information – have proven to be the most stable and defensible over time. There's still plenty of room for discernment in the way those principles are applied on a case-by-case basis.

[1] >>46145902

[go to top]