4 ms·
Did anyone else have to read this title several times to parse it? "Twitter features _that_ Mastodon is better for not having" is better, but still seems strang
by trentgreene 4y ago
Did anyone else have to read this title several times to parse it? "Twitter features _that_ Mastodon is better for not having" is better, but still seems strange
edit: I think what trips me up is that "features" is used here as a noun but because of it's placement in the sentence I want to read it like a verb
- johnchristopher 4y agoI am not a native speaker and I have always found US news headlines to be weirdly constructed to the point I can't tell if it's a normal headline or if there's a mistake in it. What's worse is that in my native language I also notice a decline in the quality of writing, to the point where sometimes whole sentences are indecipherable. In this case I only needed to read it once. I often feel like "that" and "and" words are dropped in headlines. I suppose it saves some precious bytes. /s
- pavlov 4y agoWhy not go all the way to “Twitter features Mastodon good no have”? Headline impact improved 27%, promotions all around!
- technoooooost 4y agoGot it 5th time
- chippy 4y agoMastodon is better off not having these twitter features top 10 features from Twitter that you wouldn't believe Mastodon doesnt have
- kragen 4y agoMastodon's one weird trick twits hate
- ajdude 4y agoEven after reading it several times, I could not parse that title, precisely because I kept interpreting "features" as a verb. Viewing the actual article yields the real headline, which makes more sense: 4 Twitter features Mastodon is better for not having That "4" at the beginning makes all the difference!
- gnull 4y agoThe original title says "4 twitter features", which is less confusing.
- heavymark 4y agoYes I’m still confused what it’s attempting to say.