3 ms·
I guess this is why HN mods edit titles on submissions (although the original title is just as terrible). The Supreme Court did not side with anyone; they denie
by revelation 13y ago
I guess this is why HN mods edit titles on submissions (although the original title is just as terrible). The Supreme Court did not side with anyone; they denied a petition to the court, which is the case for the vast majority of petitions.
If they did accept this particular petition, this would not mean that the Supreme Court sides with the patent troll and the world is doomed; it simply means that the case deals with a contested issue where clarification by the Supreme Court is widely sought.
- dded 13y agoI cut-and-pasted the original title, which now appears to have changed.
- bostonpete 13y agoI thought cut-and-pasting the title was the only sanctioned approach to titles on HN and anything else was "editorializing". I've seen any number of more useful titles changed to match the linked article supposedly for this reason.
- ubernostrum 13y agoThe policy is this: 1. If you used the original title, that was wrong and it needs to be changed to something more informative or less link-bait-y. 2. If you provided a more informative title, that was wrong and it needs to be changed to the original title. I hope that clears it up for you.
- dded 13y agoI see that the title has been changed to something that's neither the original title nor the current title of the article itself, but to something more straightforward and unbiased. That's all well and good, but I do wish that the word "Newegg" had been preserved in the title, as I think of this as the "Newegg case"; and I think a lot of others do too. Preserving it would be better for people searching for the discussion in the future.