Thread

1. huurtehoog · 1789575795 · focus · HN ↗

   Title is editorialized. Original: "This code is CRAP" referring to code in review as Change Risk Anti Pattern.

   Also, (2011)

   1. GranPC · 1789576462 · focus · HN ↗

      I believe the "This" might have gotten swallowed by HN's title normalizer.

      1. badc0ffee · 1789576858 · focus · HN ↗

         This title normalizer is crap.

         1. GranPC · 1789577118 · focus · HN ↗

            In its (admittedly weak) defense, if the submitter edits the title back during the few-minute window after submitting where this is possible, the normalizer does not kick back in. But it is a bit opaque, in the sense that the poster needs to: realize that the title has been changed; know that they can edit the title (but not too slow!); and know that it won't be filtered through again.

            I have no idea what the website would look like without it, but I have a feeling it does more good than harm.

            1. hunter2_ · 1789577212 · focus · HN ↗

               What is the "good" when considering the lack of aggressive truncation/overflow concerns here?

               1. GranPC · 1789577655 · focus · HN ↗

                  It's more of a gut feeling than anything else. I don't know what the normalization rules are, but I think we mostly notice the normalizer when it mangles something [1], and not when it's just quietly humming along. Someone with more spare time could probably figure out a dataset of original to normalized titles and measure that.

                  [1]: Example from the frontpage right now: "How Big Are Factorials?" probably got normalized to "Big Are Factorials?" originally, based off other previous manglings I have seen previously.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.