"Why specs matter" is clear about the ultimate point the article tries to make, but entirely fails to communicate the tone of writing it uses. "Most developers

"Why specs matter" is clear about the ultimate point the article tries to make, but entirely fails to communicate the tone of writing it uses. "Most developers are morons, and the rest are assholes" tells you what the article is like to read. I expect some people will dismiss the article without following the link to read it based on that alone. That's good! (Other people will find themselves compelled to click...) But it doesn't communicate that the article is ultimately about specs, it's true. The submitter has chosen to emphasise a different aspect of the article than did the author. That's not editorialising. It's presenting the article differently for the different context of HN (as opposed to the context of Mark Pilgrim's blog). Editorialising would be if the submitted title was "Specs are useless because no-one reads them properly" or "Mark Pilgrim is a moron and an asshole". Both of them have an element of truth, but it is a stretch to get there from the article itself.