I didn't intend to imply you had anything to gain from attracting clicks, so I want to withdraw any such accusation as may be inferred.
I was referring to the HN guidelines, specifically that "You can make up a new title if you want, but if you put gratuitous editorial spin on it, the editors may rewrite it." and the general policy of using the source's title wherever possible. I felt adding Hacks was gratuitous spin.
"Who wants to be a cognitive neuroscientist millionaire" tells me more about the story than "Brain researcher hacks ...", but it appears that we have different applications of the word hack, and I respect your explanation.
FWIW, the original title of the article is absolute rubbish - it's a "clever" title that gives nothing away. I wouldn't have clicked on it. Your title got me in there and I wasn't disappointed.
I was referring to the HN guidelines, specifically that "You can make up a new title if you want, but if you put gratuitous editorial spin on it, the editors may rewrite it." and the general policy of using the source's title wherever possible. I felt adding Hacks was gratuitous spin.
"Who wants to be a cognitive neuroscientist millionaire" tells me more about the story than "Brain researcher hacks ...", but it appears that we have different applications of the word hack, and I respect your explanation.