I thought the post was pretty clear on both of these things. I'm surprised that all the top-level comments here (at the time I write) are addressing only the longer review time - it seems clear enough that the real problem is that it's impossible to schedule a release properly.
So many people comment--on everything, not this post specifically--without reading anything more than the title of the HN post. They basically treat the title as a "topic suggestion" instead of reading the article itself.
It's a pretty annoying behavior because it means that discussions often end up wildly off-topic or with a lot of comments missing the point, or just re-stating the exact same things that the article already said (often because people ask questions that the article answered, but they didn't read it).
Unfortunately there's not really any good way to fix it. We had a big discussion about this same issue on Tildes recently too: https://tild.es/gjb
I consider this a feature more than a bug. I don't come here for the links. They're the same links that get posted to all the other link aggregators. Often the content is disappointingly thin, poorly written, or just a ranting opinion. Usually the content is packaged with an inane amount of bandwidth-hogging privacy-invading tracking scripts and malware. I make a point of not clicking the link unless something in the comments leads me to believe it will be compelling.
I come to hacker news to find out what the hacker news userbase thinks. I get a lot more value learning about a topic from the questions and answers smart people are posing to each other on a domain that isn't trying to cram garbage down my throat, even if they do end up rehashing one of the scant details or traipsing off-topic from the original submission.
You're talking about reading the comments before the post. That doesn't cause problems. The issue is for people making comments, and specifically comments about the article, without having read it.
I totally get it. I'm just saying those comments don't bother me. Oftentimes they lead to a correction and more interesting conversation that, again, saves me from having to click the actual link.
Of course I live for the comments where someone who has read the article posts a concise summary.
>Usually the content is packaged with an inane amount of bandwidth-hogging privacy-invading tracking scripts and malware.
And paywalls. Probably 1/4 of the time when I open a link "You've viewed your allotted 1 article this decade, please pay us $39.95 a month for access to our articles"
Like Slashdot does? It certainly has merit, but that requires that someone actually write the summary, which is more work and injects (more) subjectivity.
That doesn't fix anything, it just changes the problem. I guarantee a popular post with a title like that would get comments saying "it already has them" from people that didn't read the article and don't know about the new review process and mandatory wait.
Situations simply can't be covered well in a single sentence. That's a big part of why Twitter is such a terrible platform for discussing anything of substance, there's no room for context.
You could make a quiz for articles using machine learning and allow commenters to optionally complete quiz questions before commenting to earn a flag that says they've read the article.
It's not easy, but nothing worth doing is. And on the plus side, the question-answer problem already has a lot of contributed work [1]. And if you have a meager SE salary's worth to contribute I'm game to have a go at it =)
It makes it clear if you're really paying attention, familiar with this sort of thing to a degree, and thinking actively about what is going on.
However if you are skimming the article, reading the title, aren't particularly familiar with the topic (esp. non HN audience) it is easy to get the wrong impression. There's nothing wrong with not giving your full attention to a piece of writing, there is a lot of it out there and time is short, maximizing the value per time you get means lots of things get only a little attention.
A good article means a good title and a thesis that comes out and slaps you in the face right away. The title should be a short abstract of the whole (not bait but substance) preferably including the conclusion. The real meat of the title should be at the beginning of the title, not the end. The first paragraph should lead with a high level view of the content and the path the rest of the article is going to take.
The title and beginning of the piece should both contain the entire point and conclusion of the article and sell the reader on finishing the whole with expanded reasoning, details, and conclusions.
I believe the post makes it very clear, and the title, which some may consider misleading regarding your actual issues with the new policy, is appropriate because 1) that's the feature as presented by Google, and 2) is clearly just the tip of the iceberg when you notice the post is quite long.
