4 ms·

HN changed the title to something more Microsoft-friendly, instead of leaving the original blog headline. Figures.

dang 10y ago
The HN guidelines call for changing titles when they are misleading or linkbait: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. What we did here is standard practice and has zero to do with Microsoft. When moderators change a title, we always try to replace it with representative language from the article itself. In this case you can find that language in bold at the bottom of the article. Users who feel strongly about Microsoft (for or against) are fond of accusing the refs of being biased (against or for), but that's the case with every emotional topic. It always feels like the mods are against you. But we're as careful as we know how to make sure it isn't true in reality.
- yAnonymous 10y ago
  Why didn't you use the closing of the article "MICROSOFT KILLS OFF INDEPENDENT SOFTWARE VENDORS BY FOISTING ITS PRODUCTS ON USERS THAT ARE IN NO WAY BETTER" then, which happens to be bigger and bolder than the quote you chose and represents the tone of the article a lot better? Instead, you replaced it with the most positive line you could find until users complained. You do this time and time again and it smells like bullshit.
  - dang 10y ago
    That won't fit in 80 chars, so we had to edit it. We also edit superlative language and outrage language out of titles. This is all tediously routine. Actually the current title is more indignant than we'd usually allow ("kills off", "foisting"), so this case is actually a counterexample to what you say. > You do this time and time again and it smells like bullshit. This is a sample bias. People notice the cases they dislike and fail to notice the ones they don't, thus weighting their sample. The more strongly you feel, the more this effect will skew your view. No doubt we do have biases—though I'd be flabbergasted if the one you're accusing us of were among them—but given how hard we work to be neutral, and how powerful this sample-weighting dynamic is, moderator bias is a poor explanation here. It's like a programmer being too quick to blame the compiler.

dang 10y ago

The HN guidelines call for changing titles when they are misleading or linkbait: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. What we did here is standard practice and has zero to do with Microsoft. When moderators change a title, we always try to replace it with representative language from the article itself. In this case you can find that language in bold at the bottom of the article. Users who feel strongly about Microsoft (for or against) are fond of accusing the refs of being biased (against or for), but that's the case with every emotional topic. It always feels like the mods are against you. But we're as careful as we know how to make sure it isn't true in reality.

yAnonymous 10y ago
Why didn't you use the closing of the article "MICROSOFT KILLS OFF INDEPENDENT SOFTWARE VENDORS BY FOISTING ITS PRODUCTS ON USERS THAT ARE IN NO WAY BETTER" then, which happens to be bigger and bolder than the quote you chose and represents the tone of the article a lot better? Instead, you replaced it with the most positive line you could find until users complained. You do this time and time again and it smells like bullshit.
- dang 10y ago
  That won't fit in 80 chars, so we had to edit it. We also edit superlative language and outrage language out of titles. This is all tediously routine. Actually the current title is more indignant than we'd usually allow ("kills off", "foisting"), so this case is actually a counterexample to what you say. > You do this time and time again and it smells like bullshit. This is a sample bias. People notice the cases they dislike and fail to notice the ones they don't, thus weighting their sample. The more strongly you feel, the more this effect will skew your view. No doubt we do have biases—though I'd be flabbergasted if the one you're accusing us of were among them—but given how hard we work to be neutral, and how powerful this sample-weighting dynamic is, moderator bias is a poor explanation here. It's like a programmer being too quick to blame the compiler.