zlacker

Can you explain?

>>happyt+(OP)
"Why" is redundant. If the article is stating premise "X" and it's on the front page (assuming it's not newsworthy enough that "X" is novel and worth discussion), it's obviously going to explain "Why X" and "X" is sufficient.

>>mmastr+A3
"Why" only adds clarity. What is the advantage of removing it?

>>mmastr+A3
But why does HN feel it's necessary to editorialize titles like that? My browsing experience isn't any better because HN decided to strip out the "why", and I've seen multiple situations in the past where the auto editing of titles here actually resulted in a title that made zero sense.

>>anamex+y4
People on HN hold very odd opinions near and dear to their hearts. Minor variances in a article title being one of them.

>>mmastr+A3
Lots of posts on HN state the fact "X" is happening and are searching for help to find the reason or just conveying a story. "Why" in the title tells people the author knows the reason and is going to explain it in the post.

>>mmastr+A3
Is that actually the rationale, or are you guessing? It seems weak, if true, since:

- An article reporting X does not or can not necessarily always explain why X.

- Removing "Why" can (and does) destroy some titles, and submitters aren't always going to notice it was changed under their nose and fix it before submitting (or they will consciously trust the bad change, if they are not themselves an experienced reader of the language).

- Removing "why" doesn't seem to have any impact aside from saving a tiny bit of space and a tiny bit of annoyance for the small subset of people who are opinionated writers and dislike seeing the "why" trope in the cases when it is truly unnecessary.

It's not like we're talking about the "You won't believe why..." trope. Then I could understand.

>>0x1ch+k5
They internalize title heuristics because of who they perceive is the author of the heuristics.

>>sitkac+7b
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say. HN users mimic other HN posters they find credible?

>>0x1ch+gw
"You can tell the kind of person by how they write"

>>anamex+y4
"Why" and "how" is clickbait hooks. The point is always what is after

>>happyt+n6
it's the norm that article talks about why and how.

- If article "I have to give Fortnite my passport to use Bluesky" does not explain why and how then it's a bad article not worth sharing on HN anyway

- "Why", "how" is clickbait. It's the "You won't believe how" intensificator but for thinking geeks. The real topic is always what happens after. unless it's an actual question quoted in title, in that 1% of cases it can be edited in.

>>happyt+bz
You can tell the kind of person by what they write.