>The trouble is that the good cases pass without notice whereas the bad cases attract attention. No, the trouble is the bad cases attract attention. >By that

>The trouble is that the good cases pass without notice whereas the bad cases attract attention. No, the trouble is the bad cases attract attention. >By that standard, literally any feature is a bad thing. That's specious reasoning, because that isn't the standard. The standard is signal over noise. The script cut one word out of the title, which changed the context of the title enough that it spawned confusion and what is now the biggest subthread here. The bulk of conversation under TPA is about this issue, not the subject at hand. When it works correctly, does it add to the quality of conversation more so than its failures detract? I don't think so. When it works it doesn't matter, and when it fails everything goes off the rails. If you have to have this feature, just add a confirmation step. And maybe at least check that the canonical URL is different than the posted URL and confirm that, too. Yes it means added complexity, but so did the features themselves. Minimalism doesn't mean you have to cut your nose off to spite your face.