5 ms·
This headline is sensationalistic beyond the pale of respectable journalism, and certainly beyond that of HN. The article does nothing to justify the title. Spe
by goodside 15y ago
This headline is sensationalistic beyond the pale of respectable journalism, and certainly beyond that of HN. The article does nothing to justify the title. Speculating ways in which Twitter might eventually lose to a new competitor does not license you say they've already been "mortally wounded".
To the extent that anyone reading this has the authority to change headlines (I only know for sure that pg does), could you please modify it to something reasonable? Thanks.
For others, please note that improving headlines is not only permitted, but very much precedented and generally encouraged. Bad headlines let shitty articles get upvoted, and degrade the overall quality of HN. (With some sources, namely Popular Science, I'd even humbly suggest changing the headlines be mandatory.)
- jimbokun 15y agoThe headline's awful, and the tone of the article sensationalistic, but I thought it made some good points. If the description of Google+ is accurate (don't have an invite, haven't really tried to get one), Google may have found a solution for Facebook spam. I tried to use my Facebook account for awhile, but it quickly became a wall of Farmville updates. I know there are settings I could use to get rid of those, but investigating it seemed too much work to bother. So it seems that Google is attacking Facebook at their weakest point, and that's pretty interesting and worthy of discussion, and I'm glad it got up voted enough that I saw it, in spite of the bad title.
- bad_user 15y agoI am blocking all apps and even some of my acquaintances that have nothing to do but send app invites. However, it's a continual struggle and I couldn't find an option to block all app invites. And I also don't want to block all apps, just invites, which makes this a delicate issue.
- hullo 15y agoA while back (6 months? more?) Facebook tweaked things so that only game players see game updates in their feed. Overall the article dramatically undersells the work that Facebook has done to improve the feed, mainly building off of signals you give it via engagement - I don't see updates from friends that I don't care about, and fairly rarely miss important updates from those that I do care about. I could see how someone who only uses Facebook rarely wouldn't get that impression of improvement, as they will have given the algorithm very few inputs to work with.
- BenOfTomorrow 15y agoThe problem with the filtering is that it isn't transparent. Updates from people I'm actually interested in don't show because Facebook's feed algorithm thinks we don't interact on the site enough, and there's no mechanism to correct it or even let me know I've missed something. Perhaps it's been fixed more recently, but I found that incredibly annoying.
- tptacek 15y agoWhat's Facebook spam? I haven't seen a Farmville update in something like a year.
- danssig 15y ago>I know there are settings I could use to get rid of those, but investigating it seemed too much work to bother. Too much work to bother? I don't think you'll make it anywhere then. All you had to do was mouse over one of the updates and click the X. It would then ask you what you were killing, Farmville or the person who sent it. You say Farmville. Finished. No more Farmville updates ever again.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- stephth 15y agoI think you're confusing news and reviews. "G+ is awesome" is clearly indicative of an opinion, and in that sense the headline is actually quite descriptive of the content of the article, unlike sensationalistic headlines.