Please read the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. They say: "If the title includes the name of the site, please take it out, because the site name will be displayed after the link." That's why a moderator changed it: the submitted title was "Jepsen: MongoDB 4.2.6".
I don't mind making an exception, since exceptions are things sometimes. Jepsen is famous on HN, so the current title is not an issue. Indeed, referencing a specific finding would arguably be misleading, since this article is the Jepsen report about MongoDB 4.2.6. Btw, I don't know what you mean by "The first title (that specifically referenced a finding of the analysis) was best". The submitted title was "Jepsen: MongoDB 4.2.6" and it has only ever rotated between two states, one with "Jepsen: " and one without. Are you confusing this thread with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23285249?
It's very silly to have this be the top comment on the page (I've since downweighted it, but that's where it was when I looked in). Yesterday I briefly swapped the URL of this article into the other thread, but then reversed that because it seemed that thread couldn't support a more technical discussion (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23288120). I invited aphyr to repost it instead, which was quite a break from our standard practice of downweighting follow-up posts, but seemed like the best solution at the time. What technical discussion was our reward? Bickering about title policy!
I don't mind making an exception, since exceptions are things sometimes. Jepsen is famous on HN, so the current title is not an issue. Indeed, referencing a specific finding would arguably be misleading, since this article is the Jepsen report about MongoDB 4.2.6. Btw, I don't know what you mean by "The first title (that specifically referenced a finding of the analysis) was best". The submitted title was "Jepsen: MongoDB 4.2.6" and it has only ever rotated between two states, one with "Jepsen: " and one without. Are you confusing this thread with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23285249?
It's very silly to have this be the top comment on the page (I've since downweighted it, but that's where it was when I looked in). Yesterday I briefly swapped the URL of this article into the other thread, but then reversed that because it seemed that thread couldn't support a more technical discussion (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23288120). I invited aphyr to repost it instead, which was quite a break from our standard practice of downweighting follow-up posts, but seemed like the best solution at the time. What technical discussion was our reward? Bickering about title policy!