How do I supply documentation to vindicate my posting relating to the Duncan Hines 1940 Travel Guide that highlighted travel accommodations that banned “Restricted Clientel” which was referring to Jews and Blacks?
In the comments section, others have asked: Which part exactly in the posted link justified the editorialized title?
If you help them find an answer, I'm sure there will be enough good will for someone to vouch for the post (in case you repost it and it gets flagged again).
Note that the post at this writing has been restored.
Note that a subtle or understated post and title can be submitted and recommended for the second-chance pool (https://news.ycombinator.com/pool). And comments which are broad and highlight some under-served interest are often accepted as such. HN mods do rest their thumbs on the scale every so often, and I've yet to see that be self-serving.
Aggressingly pressing a pecuniary interest (e.g., your own website or business to the exclusion of all else), or deliberately inflaming titles, is a major foul on HN.
If you do need to reasonably shorten a title, or substitute for one that's more clear, please note that alongside your submission.
In the 2nd case (which I'd also emailed mods), dang changed to title to be similar to what I'd suggested.
There are times with especially vague or unclear titles that you might have to hunt through the text for a good substitution. In general, the preferred order is:
- Original title.
- Original title stripped of listicle and clickbait elements. "Ten things you need to know about Foo" becomes "Things to now about Foo"
- Title-casing all caps and removing sprurious punctuation and glyphs.
- The <title> element of an article, which is often less clickbaity.
- A subhead.
- A quote lifted directly from the text of a work.
If you can't find a title in the work you're linking, but are aware of another work which discusses some aspect of it, you might want to substitute that other article. If necessary, you can write that article and highlight the elements you want to call out, and submit your own article.
ANY of these is preferable to editorialised titles.
You can also add a comment either when submitting or afterwards giving further background on a topic (my first own example above was submitted with the post in question).
Posting from fringe or highly controversial / biased sites may not reflect well on you.
I've had decent luck posting and commenting to HN. I still see comments and submissions flagged. Making the front page is challenging, and only a small fraction of submissions do so. Learning what the Hivemind is attracted to helps, and it is broader and more diverse than is often credited.
The post might still violate HN Guidelines, since it editorializes the title:
"please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize"[1]
Posting an article that describes the issue, and is self explanatory, may be a better choice, such as this one (which refers mostly to Canada but also notes the widespread usage of "restricted clientele" ads in the U.S.):
When the words “RESTRICTED CLIENTELE” we're searched for 456 entries of accommodations scattered across the Country we're indicated as places that Jews and Blacks were not welcome.
If you help them find an answer, I'm sure there will be enough good will for someone to vouch for the post (in case you repost it and it gets flagged again).
Edit: assuming this is the post you are referring to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30263614