

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

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.<p>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.<p>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?
======
mechanical_fish
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.

~~~
yters
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.

------
qhoxie
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.

~~~
pg
_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.

~~~
qhoxie
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.

