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.
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.
"I had to follow a hyperlink to get the information I wanted" is a pretty amusing first world problem.
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.