It is somewhat annoying when a link's "natural title" is not good and the submitter improves it - only to have it reverted.
It is somewhat annoying when a link has a misleading "natural title" but is not changed.
In short, I like editing when it makes sense and don't like it when it doesn't. Hence you cannot please everyone with either absolute, so I would say err on the side of least effort - therefore no editing!
This is exactly the problem. A good title on Hacker News is itself a valuable piece of content. A good title here will concisely convey the point of an article, so that each of us can decide if we want to check it out.
Often this is directly at odds with the purpose of a "natural title", which is designed by the author to entice and tantalize in order to drag eyeballs to it. Not to communicate, but to manipulate.
If the natural title is also good as a HN title, great. But if not, and if the submitter made a good effort to construct a good HN title, then it should not be changed.
Comments
It is somewhat annoying when a link's "natural title" is not good and the submitter improves it - only to have it reverted.
It is somewhat annoying when a link has a misleading "natural title" but is not changed.
In short, I like editing when it makes sense and don't like it when it doesn't. Hence you cannot please everyone with either absolute, so I would say err on the side of least effort - therefore no editing!
This is exactly the problem. A good title on Hacker News is itself a valuable piece of content. A good title here will concisely convey the point of an article, so that each of us can decide if we want to check it out.
Often this is directly at odds with the purpose of a "natural title", which is designed by the author to entice and tantalize in order to drag eyeballs to it. Not to communicate, but to manipulate.
If the natural title is also good as a HN title, great. But if not, and if the submitter made a good effort to construct a good HN title, then it should not be changed.