Comment by hinkley

> You mean the scientific journal editors?

It’s died down lately but there has been a lot of spleen venting here about how shit article titles are compared to their contents. Often implying the exact opposite of the contents. The usual explanation is that editors pick the titles. And then there is a lot of uncharitable speculation about what exactly editors are good for given they are so overwhelmingly awful at titles. Which I am all too happy to participate in.

What’s interesting is the policy here used to be no editorializing on titles. But the title of this thread has been changed to something more like the paper and less like the article describing it. Seemingly in violation of that old policy. I hope that means I’ve missed a shift in policy happening.