4 ms·
Microsoft betrays the trust of customers and partners in the name of progress
- quesera 14y agoReal title: "Why Microsoft is for once the cool kid in the technology world" Submitter's title: "Microsoft betrays the trust of customers and partners in the name of progress" Submitter's name: iProject I smell an agenda. Flagged for blatant violation of posting guidelines, and general poor taste.
- iProject 14y agoActually, "Microsoft betrays" was the subtitle of the original page, with "Why Microsoft is for once the cool kid in the technology world" as the title. But when I use the HN script for posting, the script pulls from the <title> info of the page... which is "Microsoft betrays the trust of customers and partners in the name of progress" By posting it at HN I was not endorsing the headline's opinion - but interested in what an HN dialogue had to say about whether or not Microsoft actions constituted a "betrayal of trust:
- quesera 14y agoThat's a fair rejoinder, and I apologize for attributing an agenda to your actions. I can't check the article for that subtitle now, apparently WaPo only lets me look once before putting the article behind a login wall. But your posting tech is broken. There are lots of reasons to dislike auto-post-to-HN scriptlets. This is one. WaPo's editorial style is also broken, if they will argue with themselves in title and subtitle.
- phaylon 14y agoThe title is also in the URI that was posted.
- quesera 14y agoYou're right. 98% of the problem here is WaPo's. I cleared cookies and got in to read page two, where they hide the (sub)lede and get around to discussing betrayal, like the HTML title and URL slug implied they would. iProject and I can share the other 2%, for propagating without comment, and reacting without all the data, respectively. Terrible article though, it reads like an OpEd written for a high school paper. I sometimes feel like the MSM response to the blogger incursion into their domain by setting up blog-editorial departments to show the world just how bad writing can be when done by professionals. This article would never pass editorial at the real WaPo, but stupid is apparently OK for online. FWIW, I never actually flagged the article. But I do think it's a waste of time to read. Perhaps exceeded only by this thread.
- smacktoward 14y agoActually I don't think WaPo really has anything to do with this piece. It's credited to VentureBeat.com rather than a Post reporter. It looks like they're just syndicating an article that originally ran here: http://venturebeat.com/2012/06/22/microsoft-betrays-the-trust-of-its-customers-and-partners/ http://venturebeat.com/2012/06/22/microsoft-betrays-the-trus... VentureBeat's headline for the piece is "Microsoft betrays the trust of customers and partners in the name of progress". So the more pointed headline that the article was submitted under is the original one, written by VentureBeat; the Post then changed the title to the softer "Why Microsoft is for once the cool kid in the technology world" before running the syndicated article. The Post's CMS must have kept the original headline to use in the TITLE element, permalink, etc.
- quesera 14y agoThe WaPo syndicating VentureBeat is like HBO carrying Topeka public access. Whatever have we wrought? No offense to Kansas. Their public access channels are probably awesome.