EDIT: after seeing &#x2F;u&#x2F;mbrock&#x27;s comment: fully agreed to that, he picked out very well what I couldn&#x27;t put in words.<p>There certainly is a lot of chance with what gets picked up and what not -&gt; often enough you see a link go nowhere, someone posts the same 2 hours later and it goes up the front page.<p>That said, I agree with &#x2F;u&#x2F;fundamental, and I guess many people don&#x27;t even click on headlines like that, because the chance that there is something high-quality behind them is slim. Looking at the first page of your submission history, there are quite a few that follow this pattern. For others the title doesn&#x27;t, but the content is similarly very shallow.<p>The few articles that seemed interesting to me:<p>&quot;Privacy conscious Two-factor authentication&quot;: might get interesting discussion, maybe resubmit as a &quot;Show HN:&quot;<p>&quot;Hack your way to presidency&quot;: headline doesn&#x27;t really give context, not sure if relevant right now (it was 2014, what came out of it later? <i>THAT</i> might be an interesting analysis)<p>&quot;When Engineering fails&quot;: Again, headline doesn&#x27;t describe the content properly (and if people expected something else they IMHO are less likely to comment).<p>Look at the blog posts that get very high on HN and are not announcements of some product etc. and compare.