3 ms·
Totally agree. Most people here are smart, we don't need submitters editorializing, which is usually what title changes are.
by mattmaroon 13y ago
Totally agree. Most people here are smart, we don't need submitters editorializing, which is usually what title changes are.
- anigbrowl 13y agoBeing smart, we can also generally tell when a title is editorializing, and weigh that against the quality of the original source in deciding whether or not to click. If all titles are auto-reverted, then we're at the mercy of the crappy editorializing of the publisher; I feel I have to check out stuff with stupid titles because maybe there's a cogent article behind it.
- mattmaroon 13y agoI can't tell if a submitter is editorializing or the original article is until I click through. If I know it's the publisher because titles aren't altered, I can simply not click through if I'm not interested. If it's the submitter, then maybe there's a great article there that I'd miss because of it.
- anigbrowl 13y agoI disagree. Most editorializing is obvious, because people who can't see the difference between facts and personal opinion tend to make free with the adjectives.
- mattmaroon 13y agoI think you misunderstood. It's obvious when there is editorializing. However without clicking through, there is no way to know if it's the article's actual title doing it, or the submitter, because you don't know if it was changed. Unless all submissions use the actual title (or none I suppose).
- anigbrowl 13y agoAh, I see. I feel like I am pretty good at guessing based on the source and the poster history, but I'd have to try a controlled test to know that's not just my bias.