3 ms·
In the case of HN, it’s explicitly against submission guidelines and frowned upon.
by Operyl 4y ago
In the case of HN, it’s explicitly against submission guidelines and frowned upon.
- Dylan16807 4y ago"Editorializing" is against the guidelines. Trying to submit a subsection of a bigger work, with the closest it has to a title, is perfectly acceptable... if it has its own URL. If it doesn't have a URL, then you're screwed. One of the few benefits of tweet threads: you can link a particular tweet.
- Operyl 4y agoI think we might be confused, originally the title was not “ The Day The Standard Library Died” on HN. dang changed it back to that title. It was a completely different title, submitted originally: “ "It is currently faster to launch PHP to execute a regex than using std:regex"” which is what I’m saying was editorialized.
- Dylan16807 4y agoThe title was a direct quote pointing to a specific part of the article. If the article had been a series of tweets, they could have linked to that tweet and it would have been fine and not been editorializing. That's why I'm iffy on calling it editorializing. Even if it is, I blame URLs for not allowing the equivalent of linking a specific tweet from a series. It's especially bad when there's a news roundup article talking about 3 or 4 different things, and you can't just submit the third one with the title of that section.