People editorialise titles. Your suggested box would almost ask for editorialising.
Yes, exactly! And that's a Good Thing in the cases I'm talking about. Let's quit throwing the word editorialising around like it's a pejorative. Editorialising serves a purpose and is actually needed quite often.
Mostly it serves for the editorializer to put their own spin on the topic. That's the opposite of what we want here. We want readers to make up their own minds.
That's the opposite of what we want here. We want readers to make up their own minds.
But they need enough information to make up their minds. That's what I'm trying to say here. Editorialising is NOT some universally bad thing, nor is it synonymous with "spin". If a title is something useless like "Some interesting results" then it absolutely should be editorialised, or annotated to show that it's "interesting results" in quantum mechanics, vs., content marketing, or cat-picture hosting.
All I'm saying is, not all original titles are good, and some edits serve a valuable purpose and should be allowed.
That isn't the issue at all. The issue is choosing which links to invest the time to follow, and which ones to ignore. Or do you read every link you find on HN? If so, I imagine you're one of a very select crowd who actually have the time to do that.
I don't read every link. I just use the information available (distance from the top, the age, what I can infer from the headline, the domain, the number of comments, the nature of the comments). It's an imperfect system, but in general I find its imperfection to be more tolerable than both the complaints about it and the downsides of any suggested "improvement".
Yes, exactly! And that's a Good Thing in the cases I'm talking about. Let's quit throwing the word editorialising around like it's a pejorative. Editorialising serves a purpose and is actually needed quite often.