Removing the word "record" actually make the HN-submitted title make more sense. Wrapping "disappeared" in quotes actually conveys more or less the same intent.
The HN title limit and automatic title editing is really the stupidest thing I've ever seen, especially for a site that claims to not want editorialized titles. Really ensures the exact opposite happens instead all the time.
The original title (which makes a lot more sense than the abbreviated one used for the submission):
> The Colorado River disappeared from the geological record for 5 million years: Scientists now know where it went
Removing the word "record" actually make the HN-submitted title make more sense. Wrapping "disappeared" in quotes actually conveys more or less the same intent.
The HN title limit and automatic title editing is really the stupidest thing I've ever seen, especially for a site that claims to not want editorialized titles. Really ensures the exact opposite happens instead all the time.
Paper in Science: https://phys.org/news/2026-04-colorado-river-geological-mill...
Let me guess…almond farmers?
Was it buried under popup advertisements?