5 ms·

The problem is not that titles are edited, but that such edits are not indicated in any way, effectively putting someone else's words in submitter's mouth. It

The problem is not that titles are edited, but that such edits are not indicated in any way, effectively putting someone else's words in submitter's mouth. It is simply unacceptable.

greendestiny 13y ago
I find changed titles to better whenever I happen to notice them. I also think its a great check on the kind of mob mentality a social site can develop. Having said that, I think it would be an unequivocal win for the site to show titles had been edited by mods.
aaron695 13y ago
I think it's not really putting words in the submitters mouth since A. We all know it happens. B. It's replacing it with the actual title written by the author. It can't be confused with words written by the OP. Personally no rule is perfect and simple things like just changing it can work. We all know or quickly learn the rule. It could be worst like reddit style where the titles have collapsed and are consistently emotive/sensational/misleading to get the clicks.
- toble 13y ago
  It would be good to at least indicate when an editor has rewritten a submission, so that responsibility for the headline can be pointed to the correct user. Like a '/ editorsusername' after the submitters name.
- Gertig 13y ago
  I agree with the premise but not the justification you use. I see the opposite at work, where the submitter is changing the intent of the author. Sidenote: Why would someone down vote this parent comment?
  - Avenger42 13y ago
    > Why would someone down vote this parent comment? I didn't (I can't downvote) but I would guess it's because it's wrong. See sker's comment above: Right now there's a good example of this problem on the front page. The article about the Android/PRNG security flaw is aptly editorialized as "Google confirms Java and OpenSSL crypto PRNG on Android are broken," but the original article is titled "Some SecureRandom Thoughts," which is meaningless and I would never have clicked it under any circumstances. Thankfully the mods left this one alone. And quadhome's response shows that he's the one who edited the title, so edits can be made that could be seen as putting words in the OP's mouth: I revised the title for that link several times. My final edit lifted the style of the Ars Technica[1] headline, but specifically added the more technical "Java and OpenSSL crypto PRNG" that I worried would be incomprehensible to the layman...
- jasonwocky 13y ago
  > A. We all know it happens. I didn't until now.

The problem is not that titles are edited, but that such edits are not indicated in any way, effectively putting someone else's words in submitter's mouth. It is simply unacceptable.

greendestiny 13y ago

I find changed titles to better whenever I happen to notice them. I also think its a great check on the kind of mob mentality a social site can develop. Having said that, I think it would be an unequivocal win for the site to show titles had been edited by mods.

aaron695 13y ago

I think it's not really putting words in the submitters mouth since A. We all know it happens. B. It's replacing it with the actual title written by the author. It can't be confused with words written by the OP. Personally no rule is perfect and simple things like just changing it can work. We all know or quickly learn the rule. It could be worst like reddit style where the titles have collapsed and are consistently emotive/sensational/misleading to get the clicks.

toble 13y ago
It would be good to at least indicate when an editor has rewritten a submission, so that responsibility for the headline can be pointed to the correct user. Like a '/ editorsusername' after the submitters name.
Gertig 13y ago
I agree with the premise but not the justification you use. I see the opposite at work, where the submitter is changing the intent of the author. Sidenote: Why would someone down vote this parent comment?
- Avenger42 13y ago
  > Why would someone down vote this parent comment? I didn't (I can't downvote) but I would guess it's because it's wrong. See sker's comment above: Right now there's a good example of this problem on the front page. The article about the Android/PRNG security flaw is aptly editorialized as "Google confirms Java and OpenSSL crypto PRNG on Android are broken," but the original article is titled "Some SecureRandom Thoughts," which is meaningless and I would never have clicked it under any circumstances. Thankfully the mods left this one alone. And quadhome's response shows that he's the one who edited the title, so edits can be made that could be seen as putting words in the OP's mouth: I revised the title for that link several times. My final edit lifted the style of the Ars Technica[1] headline, but specifically added the more technical "Java and OpenSSL crypto PRNG" that I worried would be incomprehensible to the layman...
jasonwocky 13y ago
> A. We all know it happens. I didn't until now.