8 ms·
"I'm perfectly fine with them changing to a better sourced URL and a more accurate title" I can see how this behavior can bring some benefits. However, what if
by pepon 12y ago
"I'm perfectly fine with them changing to a better sourced URL and a more accurate title"
I can see how this behavior can bring some benefits. However, what if the mods just change the urls in order to point to their own blogs? Or to blogs where the opinion expressed shares their view or supports the interests of whoever? That behavior can dangerously lead to manipulation.
I do not like the fact that I can see some news in the front page with 200 votes and the article that I read is not the one that received those 200 hundreds votes.
I also do not like at all the attribution issue that you mentioned.
- k-mcgrady 12y agoIt's publicly known who the HN mods are AFAIK so if they were personally benefitting from changing the links the community would know about it. >> "Or to blogs where the opinion expressed shares their view or supports the interests of whoever?" This is what got me thinking about the dangers of attribution, particularly when linking to a political article. I think the reasons for changing titles and links (click-bait, blogspam instead of source) is sound but we as a community need to police it and generally that's done pretty well. When links or titles are changed there is usually a comment from someone who noticed and the comment usually lets people know of the original link/title.