Me too. However, including some author's names and not others is inherently an editorializing decision and I'd prefer to keep the editorializing out of headlines. I didn't flag it, but do prefer that the original headline stays (which is "How credit cards make money", not "Credit cards make money" anyway)

In this case, the domain is a clear cue to me.

The HN convention is for titles to generally very closely track original titles unless those are misleading/clickbaity/etc, and assume that HNers have the domain name to author map reasonably cached.

(Thanks for the praise! Hope to continue earning it.)

1. It's not general practice at HN to put the author in the title, unless it really changes how you interpret the title. For example, you might submit Principia Mathematica (Bertrand Russell) if you think there's a real risk people might confuse it with Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica by Issac Newton.

2. kalzumeus.com is patio11's personal domain, so it's even less necessary to put the author in the title.

I think there is a risk of developing a superstar cult if the authors name is in the title. I also don’t like titles like “Harvard scientists have found X”. Suddenly the article gets more credibility because if “Harvard”. Although in reality the big name institutions are putting out as much BS as everybody else.

Really? I find him self-important and full of dubious ideas. I know that's not the conventional wisdom about him here, but take a long look at what he actually says about things. He's often wrong, and is rarely open to the possibility that this is the case.

HN's staying power comes from its highly conservative approach to website design but I agree that there are some articles that would greatly benefit from having their author's names attached to them.