This "it's the original title" policy that gets thrown around a lot seems counter-productive to me by now. Someone will post an actual description of what's significant about a release, but then it gets edited to "ObscureName 1.2" which leaves you wondering: what is this? Should I care? Is it a software tool, a hardware product, can I eat it? Is it even news, a significant milestone that makes this a viable product that I'd like, or is 1.2 a version interesting for nostalgia? It tells me absolutely nothing, but yay it's the original title?

Similarly here, it tells me every little about what the post is going to be. There's a bit of what happened, but also it's a writeup of what it is and how it's made. A better title might be "How I made an Open Source Clones List go Viral on GitHub" - just off the top of my head, you can probably do better, but it would already help you figure out whether you're interested in what it has to offer before having to click.

Well, the original title policy really is an official HN rule. On the other hand, I totally agree that titles consisting only of ObscureName are not very informative. From the current front page:

1. "Bernie Madoff Dies in Prison" - who's Bernie Madoff?

2. "Deno 1.9" - what's Deno? Is it edible?

3. "Yamauchi No.10 Family Office" - I have absolutely no idea what to expect

Instead, why not write:

1. "Bernard Madoff, Mastermind of Giant Ponzi Scheme, Dies at 82" (original Bloomberg title, explains who Madoff is)

2. "Deno 1.9 (A secure runtime for JavaScript and TypeScript)" (short description taken from the official homepage)

3. I still have no idea what this is, maybe someone can enlighten me

What's a runtime? What's JavaScript? I'm being facetious because "of course I can google that", but then I could google Deno too.

Let's talk about how people use HN in practice on titles they don't understand. They open the thread and piece together context from the top few comments. And that's fine, it works.

The contravening point is my pet peeve on this site. Any title that starts with “How” gets that word edited out, presumably to mitigate clickbaitness, but it changes the way an article might be perceived in a way that makes it less interesting for familiar subject matter. “I did x with y” doesn’t much register to someone who knows y. But how they did it might.

Not original commenter, but maybe “Open-source clones or alternatives of popular sites”? Something more descriptive about the content.

The title is perfectly fine or at least "good enough".

HN is not like Stackoverflow with its persnickety rules. This topic generated some discussion including those who feel the title is not suitable. That's a success.

Ironic to me that the ones objecting to the title say they value the time wasted to "click" but then write sentences explaining why that time was wasted. So x seconds to click and figure out you don't like the title and then 10x seconds to write a critique? Maybe just ignore it next time and move on with life?

> ignore it next time and move on with life?

You're making it sound as if this is about a single person clicking a single link and skimming until they find the necessary context (say, 15 seconds) to judge whether they want to continue reading, versus debating a topic in a subthread (minutes). Obviously, the actual point is that everyone needs to click many links whenever they visit HN and is continously sinking that time for as many useless titles as are being posted or as they can be bothered to click through on. (If needing to click to find out what it's about is fine, we should browse HN with only the stories' rank and no title at all.) We could instead choose to not religiously stick to applying a guideline on using the original title. After all, I would also like:

> HN [to not be] like Stackoverflow with its persnickety rules.

But if HN sticks hard to the original title rule. How is it not persnickety?