I disagree if the title of the article being linked to contains numbers so should the post title. It is more misleading and awkward to click the link and then do a double take when the article names don't match.

I think this is a bad guideline.

Eh? Submitters routinely submit a different title than the original article (eg. to give more context) - if that makes you do a double take, you must be doing it a lot. I don't even notice.

The N in "N ways to" is usually noise, so I can see why the guideline is there.

This has always been my favorite of HN's editorial conventions. It's interesting how the tone changes with the tiny alteration from e.g. 20 Common Mistakes Java Developers Make to just Common Mistakes Java Developers Make.

Why? It seems very similar to me...

Numbered lists imply completeness, omniscience etc. - it's a literary gimmick, both in terms of attracting the lazy reader and in giving the writer a convenient structure they can fill out easily, with the last few points usually being fluff. A famous example is the '7 habits of highly effective people' followed by 'the 8th habit' (strangely, not titled 'oh wait, I forgot one').

Of course, you could argue that leaving the numbers in informs HN readers about which articles are mere gimmickry rather than carefully written essays.

I disagree with this. At least from my own perspective, numbered list imply one thing: that I can expect a specific number of items.

In fact, in the given example, the non-numbered version of the title sounds like it should be more authoritative. It goes from an interpretation of, "a list of 20 common mistakes," to one of, "a list of /the/ common mistakes." I.e., to me at least, the second option has an implication of being a list of all the common mistakes, while the former implies that this while this is a list of 20 mistakes, there could be more.

It is the adjective ("amazing," "killer," "must-have," etc.) present in the title and NOT the number that conveys authority, completeness, etc.

Perhaps I am the exception, though, and not the rule.

It is exactly because the "top x" title is a gimmick that I want it faithfully included in HN titles. This way, I know to not click on the link in the first place, as I typically avoid these types of list articles.

I'm not sure exactly, but I think it's mainly because it does away with the overused blog-headline cliche of the "Top X" list. It puts focus back on the content rather than the structure, and makes the headline less obtrusive when listed with all the others.

It just seems less hype-oriented and attention-mongering, similar to how (if I remember correctly) HN automatically removes exclamation points from link titles.

[EDIT: Or maybe I just like that it's quirky and contributes to the particular "voice" of HN, like how the New Yorker's quirky styles for diaereses and acronyms contribute to its particular voice.]

Numbers in the title of a blog post reliably indicate bad writing, because they indicate that the writer used a template rather than original thought. I would prefer not to see "N ways to X" articles on HN at all.

Important difference among "Some N of something" and "Somethings" is that I can see, without looking at the link, that it's a "Some N of something" type article, which are mostly crap (I don't know, but I didn't see any interesting article titled "N of something" yet), so it saves time, a little.

This makes no sense. You should instill good writing, yes, but good linking should respect the original title. I come across the same articles from different sources; it would be nice to be able to quickly understand that it's the same article (because of the identical title).

If only churnalists did the same thing.

I've seen it done a staggering 100 million times.

i love rules

I only like some rules.

do we also need to do a secret handshake when posting?