5 ms·

That wasn't intended to be editorializing or picking a sensational detail. Rather, I found that to be the most relevant point and believed that it would be mos

That wasn't intended to be editorializing or picking a sensational detail. Rather, I found that to be the most relevant point and believed that it would be most salient to HN. I certainly wouldn't call it fabrication; it explicitly states that this data could be used to qualify many people for better credit, doubtless via some credit score system or similar. I think this quote best lays out that position: > Recent research documents that, once powered by artificial intelligence and machine learning, these alternative data sources are often superior than traditional credit assessment methods, and can advance financial inclusion, by, for example, enabling more credit to informal workers and households and firms in rural areas. Where "these alternative data sources" includes digital habits such as browsing history. Edit: I would suggest "IMF researchers find that digital footprint yields better credit assessment" as an alternative. These aren't fintech data sources inherently; they've been used for advertising for years.

pvg 6y ago
Rather, I found that to be the most relevant point That's what editorializing is. You can point out the thing you found salient in a comment, you can find another piece that better represents the interesting thing, etc. You can't make up the title, though.
- da_big_ghey 6y ago
  Without "making up" a headline, and were I to have used the original headline of "What is Really New in Fintech", I would not have considered this a useful submission due to the complete lack of information conveyed by the headline. The article contained important info but the headline was meaningless, so I did my best to come up with something. I guess my first attempt fell short.
- anothernewdude 6y ago
  No, you have to allow the source to do the editorializing, because that's so much better.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  The HN submission guidelines do allow for changes in title, though usually it's to combat undue sensationalism. Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html In this case, the problem is an excess of bureaucratese, euphemism, jargon, and vagueness. As Orwell wrote in "Politics and the English Language" on five badly written English passages: [T]wo qualities are common to all of them. The first is staleness of imagery; the other is lack of precision. The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house. https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_poli... It's very common to see this tactic used in communications from* organisations or institutions about matters of significant import. Take the recent " Email from Jeff Bezos to employees", as a classic example: https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/email-from-jeff-bezos-to-employees https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/email-from-jef... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26006656 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26006656). The title entirely fails to adequately describe the actual subject. As is the case with the IMF's blog entry.
  - pvg 6y ago
    The title is neither misleading nor linkbait. If you think the article is bad, you can't fix it by making up the title, just find a better article. It's really much more straightforward than you are making it out to be and does not require analysis of Orwells works. Although it is a somewhat curious choice on your part given that you seem to be trying to show that plain editorializing (i.e. "I found that to be the most relevant point") is not, in fact, editorializing. It's editorializing.
    - 6y ago
dang 6y ago
Ok, we'll use that latter suggestion above. Thanks!
ChrisIsTaken 6y ago
Tl;Dr. "The lower strata of society are being forced into precarious employment and debt slavery. (What's new?) Here's how to use a global surveillance apparatus to enable more debt slavery."

pvg 6y ago

Rather, I found that to be the most relevant point That's what editorializing is. You can point out the thing you found salient in a comment, you can find another piece that better represents the interesting thing, etc. You can't make up the title, though.

da_big_ghey 6y ago
Without "making up" a headline, and were I to have used the original headline of "What is Really New in Fintech", I would not have considered this a useful submission due to the complete lack of information conveyed by the headline. The article contained important info but the headline was meaningless, so I did my best to come up with something. I guess my first attempt fell short.
anothernewdude 6y ago
No, you have to allow the source to do the editorializing, because that's so much better.
dredmorbius 6y ago
The HN submission guidelines do allow for changes in title, though usually it's to combat undue sensationalism. Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html In this case, the problem is an excess of bureaucratese, euphemism, jargon, and vagueness. As Orwell wrote in "Politics and the English Language" on five badly written English passages: [T]wo qualities are common to all of them. The first is staleness of imagery; the other is lack of precision. The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house. https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_poli... It's very common to see this tactic used in communications from* organisations or institutions about matters of significant import. Take the recent " Email from Jeff Bezos to employees", as a classic example: https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/email-from-jeff-bezos-to-employees https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/email-from-jef... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26006656 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26006656). The title entirely fails to adequately describe the actual subject. As is the case with the IMF's blog entry.
- pvg 6y ago
  The title is neither misleading nor linkbait. If you think the article is bad, you can't fix it by making up the title, just find a better article. It's really much more straightforward than you are making it out to be and does not require analysis of Orwells works. Although it is a somewhat curious choice on your part given that you seem to be trying to show that plain editorializing (i.e. "I found that to be the most relevant point") is not, in fact, editorializing. It's editorializing.
  - 6y ago

dang 6y ago

Ok, we'll use that latter suggestion above. Thanks!

ChrisIsTaken 6y ago

Tl;Dr. "The lower strata of society are being forced into precarious employment and debt slavery. (What's new?) Here's how to use a global surveillance apparatus to enable more debt slavery."