4 ms·
It is remarkable that the title on HN could be changed to something that borders on strategically dull. I don't think you could create a less communicative titl
by sjwright 7y ago
It is remarkable that the title on HN could be changed to something that borders on strategically dull. I don't think you could create a less communicative title if you tried. This is an important story which affects a large portion of the HN audience, yet I doubt even 1% of the affected users would know what "Manifest V3" refers to.
"A response to feedback on the proposed changes in Manifest V3" is so outrageously devoid of information that it is difficult to come up with an innocent explanation for it.
- sjwright 7y agoAnd now this article has now dropped off the front page in rapid time. I don't get what the aim is here. Why bury a story that everyone is going to know about soon enough? Edit: to the numerous people who are voting my comments down, could you please provide actual feedback?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- dictum 7y agoIt's not being intentionally buried, but the rapid drop in interest is a testament to the utter dullness of "A response to feedback on the proposed changes in Manifest V3" "Manifest V3" is jargon, which is a big problem in HN. See Show HNs that don't really explain what is the thing being introduced. The Response -> feedback -> proposed changes chain is verbose. The three concepts are almost a single concept (changes) wrought as present -> past -> future. "A response to feedback on the proposed changes in Manifest V3" is a characteristically Google-internal-y [0] way to say "Update on coming changes to Chrome extension APIs". [0]: My unscientific feeling is that a lot of engineers at Google write about projects as if the audience is other Google engineers. It's not out of malice, but it's convenient when you don't have to explain the full rationale for a change.