We tried to edit the title to make it less linkbaity, but only partly. If anyone can suggest a better one (i.e. accurate and neutral), we can change it again.
I think so, it's certainly more descriptive of what's contained therein.
EDIT: The generic "women" in the current title is certainly more misleading and may be contributing to the penalty being assessed by those who haven't read the piece. The article only discusses one woman.
Yes people. Please flag [EDIT, as in write "NSFW" when applicable. Thanks shawnz]. The article feels that is going to be serious, which it kind of is, but then the pics. What was the point of that? The writer could not have simply mentioned the pics?
I think the expression, "a picture is worth a thousand words" applies. Sometimes points merit reinforcing. I'm guessing the author thought that adding the pictures added impact. I'd say it did. Too easy to gloss over phrases like "twitter account littered with misogynist/immature/whatever pictures".
The pictures, from the Instagram account of the men accused of misogyny, are directly pertinent to the purported misogyny of the people in question. Why shouldn't they be included?
Comments
Despite the linkbaity headline, this article actually adds new information and context to the controversy.
Also, NSFW Instagram images.
We tried to edit the title to make it less linkbaity, but only partly. If anyone can suggest a better one (i.e. accurate and neutral), we can change it again.
It looks like the URL of the article has an alternative (older?) headline in it:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-02/tinders-forg...
"Tinder's Forgotten Woman: Whitney Wolfe, Sexism, and Startup Creation Myths"
Ah yes, the "extract alternative title from URL" trick.
My title fu is failing me, though. Is this one really better?
I think so, it's certainly more descriptive of what's contained therein.
EDIT: The generic "women" in the current title is certainly more misleading and may be contributing to the penalty being assessed by those who haven't read the piece. The article only discusses one woman.
Ok, we changed it (from "The Truth About Tinder and Women").
Yes people. Please flag [EDIT, as in write "NSFW" when applicable. Thanks shawnz]. The article feels that is going to be serious, which it kind of is, but then the pics. What was the point of that? The writer could not have simply mentioned the pics?
I think the expression, "a picture is worth a thousand words" applies. Sometimes points merit reinforcing. I'm guessing the author thought that adding the pictures added impact. I'd say it did. Too easy to gloss over phrases like "twitter account littered with misogynist/immature/whatever pictures".
Also, great article, I thought.
This is one of the very few contexts where those types of images are completely relevant, but I'm surprised there wasn't a warning in the article.
The pictures, from the Instagram account of the men accused of misogyny, are directly pertinent to the purported misogyny of the people in question. Why shouldn't they be included?
Agreed - this article has imagery that's inappropriate to display in many locations, and should be indicated as such in the title.
I don't disagree with optimus. It's just about lacking the flag.
I think people thought you meant "flag" as in reporting the article, not "flag" as in writing NSFW in the title.
My bad.