Have we met?

After countless hours spent browsing news Web sites, it's become clear that among all the other things the Web does for writers, it allows them to put multiple headlines on the same story. This is great.
I appreciate a good headline, the way I appreciate a good Shoe comic. Good heads are fun, succinct, but leave you wondering where the rest of the story might go. They should be accessible to anyone. For years, I valued the tabloid headlines at the Boston Herald above all others. What the paper lost in the vitriol some of its columnists it made up for in the wittiness of its head lines. I can't recall any now, because like the paper and ink they were forged in, my memories of good headlines have faded and been reduced to pulp.
The same is true for the engaging headlines over at Slate, but I think that news site is on to something bigger in the way it presents its stories. Browse Slate for too long and you will inevitably end up clicking on the same story twice. Why? Because the Web site uses different headlines to link to the same story. While paper editions are forced to choose one headline and run with it, Slate can come up with three or four and appeal to a wider range of readers to click on the story and maybe read through it.
It's a great idea, and other news Web sites should steal it. If I could put multiple heads on this story, they would include "What's in a name?" "A rose by any other name..." "The beast of a thousand heads" or "AKA" - which would probably look great splashed across the front of a tabloid. (I decided to go for the lamest and last example I could think of, "Have we met?")
These multiple entry points will only draw more readers. The head line is the introduction, the come-on to the story. And first impressions count for everything when you're dealing with readers who can turn just about anywhere else for another story.