I'm not sure what you mean by "user activity based bad content detectors" but if we didn't edit titles, the threads would fill up with complaints about titles—vastly more than they already do. There would be other negative differences too, such as a front page filled with sensationalism. Moreover, these effects aren't static—they produce feedback loops. The way HN edits titles, which has been the case since the beginning, is fundamental to how the site works and what it is.
"Why you should" is a linkbait trope, sorry. The use of the pronoun "you" in titles is usually already a linkbait trope because it grabs the user's attention ("hey—you!") in a way that has nothing to do with the content. Headline writers figured this out a long time ago. I'm not saying the OP did it deliberately.
> I'm not sure what you mean by "user activity based bad content detectors"
I meant that if an article leads to a poor quality discussion you already have ways to detect that and derank it after the discussion starts going bad.
> "Why you should" is a linkbait trope, sorry.
"Why you should be using io_uring" communicates to me that there will be an argument for why it's better. "Using io_uring" suggests a more neutral article.
> but if we didn't edit titles, the threads would fill up with complaints about titles
In this case I'm assuming the complaints would be that you shouldn't use io_uring because it's bad. Editing the title here only fixed the issue for people who didn't read the article then.
> The way HN edits titles, which has been the case since the beginning, is fundamental to how the site works and what it is.
Fair enough. Thanks for taking the time to explain.
"Why you should" is a linkbait trope, sorry. The use of the pronoun "you" in titles is usually already a linkbait trope because it grabs the user's attention ("hey—you!") in a way that has nothing to do with the content. Headline writers figured this out a long time ago. I'm not saying the OP did it deliberately.