2 ms·

I'm not entirely comfortable with some unknown editor changing my title for this story. Yes, in one manner this title is accurate. However, my original title wa

by geuis 17y ago

I'm not entirely comfortable with some unknown editor changing my title for this story. Yes, in one manner this title is accurate. However, my original title was simply "Avoid these companies". I had a very specific reason for posting with that title, both in order to catch the reader's eye and to summarize the reason for my posting this link in a succinct manner. Additionally, after I posted the link I added a comment that more thoroughly explained the content of the article. That comment was removed, apparently, as I confirmed that it existed on this posting as soon as I posted it.

flatline 17y ago
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- geuis 17y ago
  Be as that may, my original comment stands.
  - jhickner 17y ago
    "You can make up a new title if you want, but if you put gratuitous editorial spin on it, the editors may rewrite it." Pretty simple.
mixmax 17y ago
The upside of a benevolent dictatorship, such as the moderators on HN, is that unsuitable submissions are killed, bad headlines changed, etc. This makes for a much better site, and keeps LOL cats, Ron Paul and politics out. The downside is that you may not always agree with the moderators. You're free to argue your case of course, and personally I think that's a good thing. Which is why I upvoted you, even thought I don't personally agree with your arguments.
- geuis 17y ago
  Returned. I love the discussion and environment we have here, which is why I keep returning. A bit more openness would be good.
gojomo 17y ago
I prefer the re-edited (original C|Net) headline to your original. Your original added spin and removed useful detail. I prefer more info and making up my own mind -- including about whether to click-through at all, which is assisted by a more detailed headline.
- geuis 17y ago
  I agree with you 100%. However, I think that articles should be flagged as "edited" with a reference to who did the edit. Its a matter of openness.

by geuis 17y ago

flatline 17y ago

http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

geuis 17y ago
Be as that may, my original comment stands.
- jhickner 17y ago
  "You can make up a new title if you want, but if you put gratuitous editorial spin on it, the editors may rewrite it." Pretty simple.

mixmax 17y ago

The upside of a benevolent dictatorship, such as the moderators on HN, is that unsuitable submissions are killed, bad headlines changed, etc. This makes for a much better site, and keeps LOL cats, Ron Paul and politics out. The downside is that you may not always agree with the moderators. You're free to argue your case of course, and personally I think that's a good thing. Which is why I upvoted you, even thought I don't personally agree with your arguments.

geuis 17y ago
Returned. I love the discussion and environment we have here, which is why I keep returning. A bit more openness would be good.

gojomo 17y ago

I prefer the re-edited (original C|Net) headline to your original. Your original added spin and removed useful detail. I prefer more info and making up my own mind -- including about whether to click-through at all, which is assisted by a more detailed headline.

geuis 17y ago
I agree with you 100%. However, I think that articles should be flagged as "edited" with a reference to who did the edit. Its a matter of openness.