Ask HN: rules of thumb for titling more difficult HN submissions? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: rules of thumb for titling more difficult HN submissions?

1 pointyters10 comments

I know many have been complaining about the lack of depth in our current HN articles. While this is partially a problem of what people post, it is also a problem of how links are titled. Many quite good articles do get submitted, but they just don't catch the eye of your average HN reader.

If you look at my submission history, you'll see that the better, and more technical articles barely get a vote, whereas a couple more mainstream articles easily hit the front page. While the mainstream articles are good, I would rather generate interest in the more technical articles and help build up the HN community.

Has anyone been successful in promoting these more beneficial links on HN? If so, what methods do you think work best? What kills an article off the bat?

View on HN

I took at look at your last two links.

Let's be frank. Both of them are just too long. I went to physics grad school and am friends with some quantum cryptographers, and there's still no way I'm going to read the physics one -- not because it's uninteresting but because I have no time. (Indeed, I'm being dragged out the door right now.)

Ditto the software estimation one. It's a whole research paper. In the words of Bruce Sterling, it's like chloroform on the screen.

If you want to motivate folks to read and upmod on these subjects you have to do some blogging. Write a blog post that cites the paper. Call out some points and tell us why this paper is important. Maybe relate it to other stuff in the field that we know, or should know.

Take a look at an issue of Nature. At the front there are a lot of little articles that summarize the content and the significance of the real research papers elsewhere in the journal. Try linking to something like that, even if you have to write it yourself. It is hard to do well (I co-wrote one once, and it was a lot of work) but practice makes perfect, and even a quick job is better than nothing.

Thanks, well received critique. I've avoided blogging about articles before because it seems like linkjacking, but you've given a good rationale for the practice.

You should title them here with what they are titled there. If a title doesn't exist, give them one that is objective and not sensational.

There is no real way to get people interested in an article you think they should be.

In the case of a nonexistant title, I just grab a very detailing sentence from the post, and put it in with quotes.

While it would be nice if people only voted for and chose articles with objective titles, the ones that mainly populate our front page are a hybrid of the two. A good title both states something objective as well as how it meets the interest of a general reader.

Right, that is largely because the top articles come from bloggers/writers/journalists whose goal it is to draw people in. Drawing in casual readers is not the goal of most highly technical writings.

True, but a) the readers here are not your average casual reader (though maybe we are getting there), and b) it is possible to title a document so it appeals to a new audience.

With technical writings, there is an immediate interest that draws in the readers. However, for a given audience, that interest is assumed. To pull in a new audience, the interest need merely be made explicit, and tied together with the article's material.

I appreciate the responses, you've helped me think this issue through. I should now be able to give better titles to technical articles.

There is no real way to get people interested in an article you think they should be.

That's not true. A good title will get an article several times more attention. I've found that the most effective titles (a) say what the article is about, and (b) appeal directly to the reader.

For example, the original title of "Why Smart People Have Bad Ideas" was "Copper and Tin." It was a bogus move to name the thing after a metaphor I was proud of, and I got what I deserved. Who's going to click on a link titled "Copper and Tin?" You can't tell what it's going to be about, whatever it does turn out to be about probably won't affect you.

The titles that seem to work the best are ones that to answer some question the reader cares about. E.g. "Why you procrastinate." The most effective of all seem to be the ones that promise (usually falsely) to cover all of some question, and embody this promise in a number: "The 7 reasons you procrastinate."

You don't necessarily want to sink to using such linkbaitish titles-- especially here, please-- but they certainly work.

I suppose I was not clear. What I meant was that there is no definite way to get people interested with the title. If they are not interested in the article itself, the title can only do so much.

That said, I agree on the point of answering a question the reader cares about. I believe I have seen some good examples of that here on HN.

"Answer a question"

Good insight, that links together the two items qhoxie and I mentioned before, readers' interest and article's content, in a succint phrase.

You've also somewhat answered the second part, "what kills an article?" but do you have anything more to add?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com