4 ms·

Sure, on the other hand pg could give a little more trust to the community and crowd-source a fix. Institute, for example, a flag and a vote on articles which h

by cam_l 13y ago

Sure, on the other hand pg could give a little more trust to the community and crowd-source a fix. Institute, for example, a flag and a vote on articles which have had a name change. Just spitballing, but if they did not meet a certain vote number and a certain percentage within a certain timeframe, then by all means change it back! Clearly, right or wrong, people give a shit about this, and telling them they shouldn't is obviously producing a lot more pointless meta-conversations than just fixing it. I am sure someone would even offer to give pg a hand to implement it if he asked nicely.

Karunamon 13y ago
To be bluntly honest, I'm shocked to see this thread existing. Granted it explains nothing, myself and some other folks have received (very nice, but still) "knock it off" emails from pg for complaining about some unbelievably terrible title reverts. The problem here, all of the complaints distilled to their base form, is that the policy, its stated reasons for existing, and its execution are not at all consistent or logical. This being Hacker news, that tends to grate on people, especially considering how much time we spend complaining about contra-logical things like politics. So we've got: Stated principle: Titles should not be edited, they're common property Inconsistency: Then why have a title submission box? If titles aren't supposed to be edited ever, why is it an option? Okay, so there are clearly instances in which titles are supposed to be edited, pg's words above and the recently modified guidelines to the contrary. (Inconsistency the second). Inconsistency the third: So if title edits are allowed for aesthetic concerns (stated guideline: rewrite headlines that are in the "$num ways to... type"), why are headlines which are clearly and objectively more descriptive than their replacements being reverted? Inconsistency the fourth: The moderators are clearly expected to use some judgement in what titles to revert, yet that enforcement is hardly 100%, and some of the calls are clearly and egregiously wrong. Inconsistency the fifth: The suggested course of action to getting around this is to make and submit blogspam, something else which the guidelines don't want you doing. Guys, I love this site, but don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. People tend to have really good bullshit detectors, and mine are redlining right now.

by cam_l 13y ago

Karunamon 13y ago

To be bluntly honest, I'm shocked to see this thread existing. Granted it explains nothing, myself and some other folks have received (very nice, but still) "knock it off" emails from pg for complaining about some unbelievably terrible title reverts. The problem here, all of the complaints distilled to their base form, is that the policy, its stated reasons for existing, and its execution are not at all consistent or logical. This being Hacker news, that tends to grate on people, especially considering how much time we spend complaining about contra-logical things like politics. So we've got: Stated principle: Titles should not be edited, they're common property Inconsistency: Then why have a title submission box? If titles aren't supposed to be edited ever, why is it an option? Okay, so there are clearly instances in which titles are supposed to be edited, pg's words above and the recently modified guidelines to the contrary. (Inconsistency the second). Inconsistency the third: So if title edits are allowed for aesthetic concerns (stated guideline: rewrite headlines that are in the "$num ways to... type"), why are headlines which are clearly and objectively more descriptive than their replacements being reverted? Inconsistency the fourth: The moderators are clearly expected to use some judgement in what titles to revert, yet that enforcement is hardly 100%, and some of the calls are clearly and egregiously wrong. Inconsistency the fifth: The suggested course of action to getting around this is to make and submit blogspam, something else which the guidelines don't want you doing. Guys, I love this site, but don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. People tend to have really good bullshit detectors, and mine are redlining right now.