I hope your take away is not that it is a good idea to embellish in the titles. There is a reason editorializing in titles is frowned upon; it's a hyperbolic arms race and everyone is a loser.
I am just trying to understand how this works. Probably is the timing. How do you explain the difference in involvement between the 2 posts? I would love to understand what made the difference. Can you explain it?
I am an open source developer. I don't sell anything. I am just trying to let people know there is something they can use to make their lives easier.
I don't care about traffic (actually I don't want unrelated traffic - a lot of noise - the key resource wasted is my time), but I do care a lot about involvement.
Since a title can actually trigger involvement, I understand it is good, especially for the readers. Isn't it?
To my understanding, it is good since people that should have been informed about the context in question, have actually been found and informed.
Check this thread for example. A lot of people found something new, learned something. Compare it to the previous one. No one learned anything.
So, what do you think?
Shall I pay some attention on titles and their effectiveness?
Please don't do things to make titles stand out, like using uppercase or exclamation points, or adding a parenthetical remark saying how great an article is. It's implicit in submitting something that you think it's important.
...
Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait.
