Hey man, it's still not clear. I would say "Nissan Admits Data for Internal Emissions-Test Was Falsified", because right now it seems like the data was internal, not the test.

I second this, I came after the change and I still didn't find it clear at all.

Nissan externally admits internal data for internal test was internally falsified.

How about "Nissan Admits Internal Emissions-Test Results were Falsified"

Ok, we'll go with that. I'm not super convinced we've improved things but you guys win.

I'm not saying change it again, but that sounds like the emissions are occurring internally.

So on an average day for you, how much time do you spend dealing with whiny posters complaining about titles, and then manually re-editorializing them yourself?

I see you've had to respond to this one at least twice, and that doesn't seem unusual from what I see here. Multiply it by a couple dozen articles that are on/near the front page per day, and...

You should keep a log and see, I suspect it's a larger fraction than you realize. It's not a positive benefit for the community discussion either.

HN users' passion for accurate titles is an unstoppable force, so the object it meets had better be moveable. I learned that the hard way. Title fever is not good for discussion, that's true, but the only way to minimize it is to flex with the objections. I learned that the hard way too.

The interesting question is why. It can't just be about titles; those are too trivial to bring out that kind of emotion.

Context switching sucks is why.

An accurate headline is like parking in a parking spot. A misleading clickbait headline is like backing into the same parking spot.

This is the only place where we have any control over that, every other social media venue we're stuck with the flashing lights and beeping noises.

Thanks for your vigilance.