I think it raises an interesting point: how many interesting links get overlooked because of poor titles? And how many titles are more interesting than the links?

Coming from a technical/academic background, good copy is not something that is emphasised - are we missing a trick?

A specific problem I see a lot on HN is blog post titles that do not make sense out of context. Titles like "Thoughts on music" or "An update on performance" might make sense if I'm reading on your site, but it gives no incentive to click through in the first place. This problem is exacerbated by HN's recent zero tolerance policy for headline changes.

I think I'm going to write up a nice study of comparative multitenant app-mesh queuing performance or something--and then, just for HN, I'll set the actual blog post title to:

> This Is A Bad Title With No Relevance; If You Revert To It You're A Bad Editor And You Should Feel Bad

...and then give the link a more sensible (but slightly editorializing) title when I submit it to HN, and see what happens. :)

Don't worry, even if you pick a good title a HN mod will come and change it to whatever they fancy.

Well when you think about it pragmatically, I don't have the time - and I'm sure you don't either - to look at every single intellectually stimulating title on the internet. And frankly, when I'm browsing HN, I'm not exactly looking for the epitome of academic integrity. I'm looking for things that I'm interested in, and that I care about. And frankly, portscanning /0 is not something that I care about very often. Researchers setting up illegal botnets are.

Copy matters.

Titles matter.

The exponential suppression of new articles is deliberately harsh. The first few early upvotes are critical. Getting them early and often requires either the right hook or a voting ring.

Copy matters in the real world too.

Yes. For an excellent introduction to writing copy, I highly recommend everything on www.copyhackers.com

I've been looking for a good copywriting blog to replace Copyblogger after it started hard selling questionable widgets.

In general articles from The Register are i) awful, ii) given link-bait headlines, and iii) available elsewhere.

The HN guideline about linking to the original source would be lovely if it meant people stopped linking to the Reg.

Wait, why did you upvote an article without reading it or the comments?

Probably to save the article for later reading.