4 ms·

We've updated the submitted title from ‘Twitter introduces new developer requirements “to protect our platform”’. Submitters, please leave out the editorial.

by sctb 8y ago

ColinWright 8y ago
I'm the submitter: This wasn't intended to be an editorial, it was intended to provide context. I believe that it's not clear from the title alone as you've included it here that it was Twitter. Yes, it's on the twitter blog platform, but so are many other things that aren't actually from twitter. Personally, I spent some time trying to make sure the submitted title was more accurate and informative than the one on the post. I freely acknowledge that it's your call. I think you got this wrong.
- brlewis 8y ago
  The "please leave out the editorial" part makes me think it was the scare quotes, not the word Twitter, that led to the title edit.
  - ColinWright 8y ago
    They weren't "scare quotes" - that was the part that was directly quoted, the other was to provide the context for the exact quotation. Perhaps I should've put: Twitter introduces “new developer requirements to protect our platform” To be honest, I do what I think is right, and I don't care to second-guess the mods. But I'm slowly being trained not to care at all.
- sctb 8y ago
  According to https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=blog.twitter.com https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=blog.twitter.com it's the Twitter blog site, is it not? The quotation marks seemed to convey something else, whether you intended them to or not. But since the original title was neither misleading nor click-bait it's besides the point. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - ColinWright 8y ago
    One can't know that without going to the site and working it out. Exactly that title on Medium, for example, would leave it completely unclear without visiting the article. So unless you know that this is Twitter's official blog - which some people (including me) wouldn't - it's useful to have the modified title. In particular you say: ... since the original title was neither misleading ... To me the title as it stands is misleading. That's why I wanted to make it clearer. <fx: shrug /> But seriously, your call. You thought it was editorialisation, intentional or not, and you changed it. I think the existing title is less useful or informative, but it's not my final decision. I've long felt that the blind reversion of submitted titles to the title of the article is misplaced and over-zealous, but as a moderator on other platforms, I know that every decision requires work, so not actually making a decision is a huge saving in time, effort, energy, and will. (Several edits have been made as I try to make my points clearer. Not sure I've succeeded, but I have no more time.)
    - sctb 8y ago
      Ah, I see. Appreciated! I did jump to conclusions here and I apologize.
      - ColinWright 8y ago
        Thank you. I'd suggest some middle ground, but it's probably too late.

We've updated the submitted title from ‘Twitter introduces new developer requirements “to protect our platform”’. Submitters, please leave out the editorial.

by sctb 8y ago

We've updated the submitted title from ‘Twitter introduces new developer requirements “to protect our platform”’. Submitters, please leave out the editorial.

ColinWright 8y ago

I'm the submitter: This wasn't intended to be an editorial, it was intended to provide context. I believe that it's not clear from the title alone as you've included it here that it was Twitter. Yes, it's on the twitter blog platform, but so are many other things that aren't actually from twitter. Personally, I spent some time trying to make sure the submitted title was more accurate and informative than the one on the post. I freely acknowledge that it's your call. I think you got this wrong.

brlewis 8y ago
The "please leave out the editorial" part makes me think it was the scare quotes, not the word Twitter, that led to the title edit.
- ColinWright 8y ago
  They weren't "scare quotes" - that was the part that was directly quoted, the other was to provide the context for the exact quotation. Perhaps I should've put: Twitter introduces “new developer requirements to protect our platform” To be honest, I do what I think is right, and I don't care to second-guess the mods. But I'm slowly being trained not to care at all.
sctb 8y ago
According to https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=blog.twitter.com https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=blog.twitter.com it's the Twitter blog site, is it not? The quotation marks seemed to convey something else, whether you intended them to or not. But since the original title was neither misleading nor click-bait it's besides the point. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- ColinWright 8y ago
  One can't know that without going to the site and working it out. Exactly that title on Medium, for example, would leave it completely unclear without visiting the article. So unless you know that this is Twitter's official blog - which some people (including me) wouldn't - it's useful to have the modified title. In particular you say: ... since the original title was neither misleading ... To me the title as it stands is misleading. That's why I wanted to make it clearer. <fx: shrug /> But seriously, your call. You thought it was editorialisation, intentional or not, and you changed it. I think the existing title is less useful or informative, but it's not my final decision. I've long felt that the blind reversion of submitted titles to the title of the article is misplaced and over-zealous, but as a moderator on other platforms, I know that every decision requires work, so not actually making a decision is a huge saving in time, effort, energy, and will. (Several edits have been made as I try to make my points clearer. Not sure I've succeeded, but I have no more time.)
  - sctb 8y ago
    Ah, I see. Appreciated! I did jump to conclusions here and I apologize.
    - ColinWright 8y ago
      Thank you. I'd suggest some middle ground, but it's probably too late.