Yes the latest crowd has created some memes for themselves. I agree we need to extinguish them for the sake of continued quality HN discussion. Including:

- X software package name reminds/confuses me of Y product with similar name

- X title is garbage. Here is the title I would write...

- I don't understand [basic concept available on Wikipedia]. Someone explain it to me (aka lazyweb)

- I'm not an expert on this, but [completely unqualified and uncited conjecture]

- I also once did X from TFA and [unrelated personal anecdote with no insight] (aka long form "me too" comment)

I come to HN so that I can read informed discussion from people who work in the field of TFA. To read discussion of basic topics between the uninformed, there is everywhere else on the internet.

That meme of "I don't understand [basic concept from wikipedia, googleable phrase, dictionary word] can you explain it?"

Has infected the hell out of our company Slack. It's considered very rude to not answer.

I feel like when I was coming up, where IRC or mailing lists were a thing, having done all possible research before asking humans was an absolute cultural requirement.

It sucked at first, but I definitely miss that and long for the old days. It was so much more respectful and efficient.

I mean, unlike a lot of aggregation sites, HN has a specific policy about link titles, which is generally sensible and does the right thing. (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

Sure, in some cases, implementation of this policy fails, and something is rewritten that shouldn't be, or something should be rewritten that isn't. But, I'd estimate maybe 80% of all discussions about titles, that I've seen, have been valid concerns, and typically resulted in a rewrite.

I have long been familiar with HN's policies. OP did not suggest a new title, they instead posted a long quote from TFA and added an oversimplified summary -- which I'm not sure adds to quality discussion. Articles which are only clickbait should be flagged. Correcting the title on a good article is different from complaining.

I sometimes wonder if it isn't almost literal bike shedding: I have nothing to contribute on the topic it hand, but I'm compelled to contribute, so I'll go on about the title. Obviously there are some egregious examples that are correctly called out, in this case, yeah, I saw "the title is terrible" and quit reading.

Other similar types of responses:

- this project/library/company name is terrible

- this website hijacks my scroll bar

- this website doesn’t render well in mobile

- I can’t read this site because it’s too narrow

- I can’t read this site because it’s too wide

The last four I’m willing to forgive as a warning to the large demographic of HN: in case any of you other yahoos think this is a good idea, it’s not.

Maybe we can make this the go to reply on these comments.

But then we all miss out on the title criticism criticisms.

There is a [-] that you can click to minimize any thread you do not wish to read.

"Just delete it if you don't want to read it", said every contributor and defender of low-quality content ever. I've been hearing this since Usenet was popular, and yet the pattern doesn't change. Can you picture Donald Knuth typing, "just delete it if you don't want to read what I write"? No, because he doesn't have to.