[flagged]
He complains that losing the "Copy, Acquire, Kill" context hurts the people who never read the post(??), which is a tad rich considering his post's success hangs on aggregators like HN.
But I'm guessing he's really salty that his breathless exaggeration "How Meta could pull off the most extraordinary pivot in tech history" was changed to something that's actually descriptive of the piece.
1. I omitted the Copy, Acquire, Kill part of the title. And while I often do complain about my own actions, I did not in this situation.
2. I'm always salty! :) Less so with Hacker News. I was exaggerating in my writing to show the silliness of trying to convince people to write while highlighting the parts that make writing less fun. Though I concede that sarcasm often does me no favors.
Ultimately, my beef with my favorite news agg is the lack of editorial note when they change a post title.
Same!
> Ultimately, my beef with my favorite news agg is the lack of editorial note when they change a post title.
I would support this.
That said, I do think that HN submissions should have a public moderation log / title edit history. But, HN has been very reluctant to add features because idk why.
The fact that you're (rightfully) questioning that, is the crux of the issue. Without an editorial note, it causes confusion and suspicion even when neither are warranted.
HN might be my favorite agg site on the web. I appreciate that I can read non-corporate blogs on here. So, I don't want to sound like I'm hammering this point too hard. But clearly there's a better way to editorialize? Maybe not. I don't have to make difficult moderation decisions so perhaps it's easy to say what they must change.