I agree, this seems like mod intervention solely aimed at discrediting the article (ie. making it appear shallow and unscientific). I'm not saying this is a great article but the edit is unnecessary.
The new title (who knows if it was changed by a mod or by the user) is more level headed, analytical and less click baity in my estimation. Not sure if those are good things, but I don't see how the new title makes it seem less scientific, if anything it does the opposite right?.
Comments
I agree, this seems like mod intervention solely aimed at discrediting the article (ie. making it appear shallow and unscientific). I'm not saying this is a great article but the edit is unnecessary.
The new title (who knows if it was changed by a mod or by the user) is more level headed, analytical and less click baity in my estimation. Not sure if those are good things, but I don't see how the new title makes it seem less scientific, if anything it does the opposite right?.
Odd, when I read "features" I assumed software features. I expected an article on user perceptions of software by feature-set.
I guess I'm saying that there's a lot of open space for interpretation?
Keep in mind that the submitter can edit the title for up to one (two?) hours after submitting it.
Unfortunately I did not edit it.