[HN Gopher] How to title your blog post or whatever
___________________________________________________________________
How to title your blog post or whatever
Author : cantaloupe
Score : 67 points
Date : 2025-05-12 16:11 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (dynomight.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (dynomight.net)
| mac-attack wrote:
| Good read, I'm going to subscribe to your blog via RSS now.
| billyp-rva wrote:
| > You'd think that, by 2025, technology would have solved the
| problem of things getting to people. I think it's the opposite.
| Social media is optimized to keep people engaged and does not
| want people leaving the walled garden. Openly prohibiting links
| would cause a revolt, so instead they go as close as people will
| tolerate. Which, it turns out, is pretty close.
|
| I'm not at all sure it would cause a revolt. Most people probably
| wouldn't notice at this point.
| lylejantzi3rd wrote:
| It did cause a small uproar, but not as big of one as I
| expected. Musk admitted that posts with links that people
| clicked on would get de-prioritized by the algorithm.
|
| https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1915806794393457034
| croisillon wrote:
| oh i thought the greatest brain in America had been removed
| from the government in order to focus on his failing truck
| business, but apparently he's "optimizing user-seconds" on
| his conspiracy forum instead?
| amw-zero wrote:
| Eh. I like to wing it and call it whatever I like. If the content
| is good, people will find it.
| boznz wrote:
| Click-bait titles like "All the best programmers know this..",
| "Breakthrough might make fusion a reality.." or any other type of
| title that does not give a hint of what the actual thing is are
| immediately discarded by me regardless of the creator. I actually
| wish there was a way of blocking these but they are usually the
| first items I see on YouTube or reddit.. sigh!
|
| This title problem is even worse as an author where you get one-
| chance for people to notice/read your book, but if the blurb or
| the cover picture is even slightly misleading or sub-par to the
| readers expectation they are likely to review it poorly and then
| the algorithm kicks it down the listings. I seriously
| miscategorised my first book and it did not do it any favors.
| paulpauper wrote:
| My belief has been that the title should describe exactly what
| it is you're writing about. no cleverness
| RetroTechie wrote:
| Better: title should capture some core aspect(s) of [thing].
| But may do so in a playful manner.
|
| Say eg. some building / construction / architecture article
| could be titled "square shapes considered harmful". And then
| discuss architects known for buildings with rounded corners
| everywhere.
|
| Personally, I don't see "audience likes it" as #1 priority. I
| prefer to make audience think, learn something, provide a new
| angle on something, or put out something that didn't exist
| before. Kind of like a movie that may not have a happy end,
| but viewers remember for the story, atmosphere, instant
| classic-potential, etc.
| aeve890 wrote:
| >I actually wish there was a way of blocking these but they are
| usually the first items I see on YouTube or reddit.. sigh!
|
| It would be cool something like a llm based link title
| classifier that hide click-bait links or something like that.
| cookingrobot wrote:
| Or it could read the article and rewrite the title to make
| the point clear.
|
| And give a score based on how interesting it will likely be
| to you.
| aspenmayer wrote:
| There's an open source crowdsourced solution for clickbait
| titles and thumbnails for YouTube, at least.
|
| https://dearrow.ajay.app/
|
| > DeArrow is an open source browser extension for crowdsourcing
| better titles and thumbnails on YouTube. The goal is to make
| titles accurate and reduce sensationalism. No more arrows,
| ridiculous faces, and no more clickbait.
| tibbar wrote:
| My best engagement on Hacker News has come from submitting great
| discussion topics; content is secondary. You're trying to think
| of something that people would really enjoy talking about if they
| just got the chance. So if you can notice systemic issues and
| perhaps give them a name, you're halfway to the front page
| already. When they read your title, people think of all kinds of
| related ideas that they've been dying to discuss! Indeed, with a
| good enough title, you barely need an article at all...
| dijit wrote:
| Agreed, when it comes to writing for hackernews I have had the
| best results personally when being curious but incomplete.
|
| If I try to actually educate someone or do my research fully,
| either someone will know more than me, and an expert will weigh
| in to invalidate some section of my posting- or people will
| pretend to be an expert- and you'll spend a day trying to
| discuss why what they're saying is incorrect. Both will cause
| the discussion for other people to die.
|
| The _best_ has been tangents that are tangentially related to
| the topic presented. There can be multiple of these subthreads
| and they always make for interesting reading.
| paulpauper wrote:
| Are you talking about writing in the context of HN comment or
| submitting links?
| dijit wrote:
| I'm talking about writing blog posts and them being
| submitted to hackernews. :)
| hakunin wrote:
| > If I try to actually educate someone or do my research
| fully, either someone will know more than me, and an expert
| will weigh in to invalidate some section of my posting- or
| people will pretend to be an expert- and you'll spend a day
| trying to discuss why what they're saying is incorrect. Both
| will cause the discussion for other people to die.
|
| Personally, I love the debates that stress-test my posts,
| they're the most interesting part for me. If I put effort
| into writing something, might as well defend it, and wouldn't
| want any punches pulled. Oftentimes people's attempts at
| debunking my message end up doing quite the opposite to what
| I'd expect -- further validating what I wrote. Other times I
| need to clarify something in the post.
| dijit wrote:
| Yeah, I agree.
|
| But it does sting a bit to do a month of research and then
| someone comes along in 10s and invalidates it.
|
| I still welcome it, but it does sting.
|
| The more annoying ones are the ones who don't engage and
| act emotionally when presented with a conclusion they don't
| like. The reason for me to write most often is because I
| found something I think is worthy of being discussed and
| that almost never aligns with peoples preconceived
| sensibilities.
| hakunin wrote:
| Agree with that too. I like watching people debate, and
| oftentimes it feels like magic when someone can
| thoughtfully counter a hard hit. It stings being on the
| receiving end of it, but the confidence grows when you
| counter a few of those. It also teaches you to debate
| yourself, which makes future work easier to defend. I
| guess I'm just saying that after a while this can become
| a calm/enjoyable hobby. Like giving talks in front of an
| audience for some people (something I haven't been able
| to push myself into.)
| 90s_dev wrote:
| Yeah, HN is an excitement factory. I come here when I want to
| talk about something I'm excited about, or read people talking
| about what they're excited about.
| andy99 wrote:
| Personal pet peeve is the "I made a" prefix to titles. It adds
| nothing but an apparently selfish shift to the author/creator as
| opposed to their work.
| arccy wrote:
| That's so selfish of you to expect other people to provide
| neutral sounding content without claiming some participation in
| doing so.
| brendoelfrendo wrote:
| I suppose it depends; if you're trying to showcase the work,
| then for sure, I'm more interested in what you made than the
| fact that you made it. Hopefully the work speaks for itself.
| But while "I made a foo" is not particularly enticing, "I made
| a foo and here's what I learned about bar in the process" can
| be a good thing. In that case, the shift in framing works
| because the focus is less on the product and more about sharing
| knowledge that the creator gained along the way that they hope
| might be entertaining or valuable to someone else.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| > Consider title-driven thing creation. That is, consider first
| choosing a title and then creating a thing that delivers on the
| title. I
|
| For better or worse, my process is:
|
| 1. Write something
|
| 2. Create a title that is sometimes literal or sometimes a theme
| if the post covers multiple topics (I know, I know)
|
| 3. Rely on a one-sentence rss/html description to provide a clear
| preview of the content
| AlienRobot wrote:
| If you don't care about SEO, why not just lie blatantly? Title
| "How I made 5 million dollars in a week working from home" then
| talk about your vacation to a local beach or something.
| paulpauper wrote:
| I disagree about negative attention being bad. People who dislike
| your content but still share it out of spite to "tell the world
| how wrong you are", can lead to more traffic and readers from
| spillover effects.
| eCa wrote:
| > You should try to make a good thing, that many people would
| like
|
| Personally, I would care (much) more about making a good thing
| over doing something many people likes.
| paulpauper wrote:
| I agree , but up to a point. If you want to get paid, get
| credit, recognition, improve career etc. it's necessary enough
| people also like it.
| turnsout wrote:
| Just have to say, the title of the actual blog post is gold. I
| would not have read the article if it didn't have the "or
| whatever." But follow point 6 people--don't just add "or
| whatever" to your posts.
| MattBearman wrote:
| One of my favourite YouTubers, superfastmatt, uses a similar
| title pattern. Eg: "Insulate Your Camper Van. Or Just Watch Me Do
| It. Whatever"
| DonHopkins wrote:
| My favorite is Peter Norvig's contradictory clickbait url:
|
| https://norvig.com/21-days.html
|
| Entitled: "Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years"!
|
| People who just see then click on the URL must be really
| disappointed when they read the actual title.
|
| Doesn't hurt that it's a great article, too!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-05-12 23:01 UTC)