Ideas Having Sex

Re:Ideas Having Sex by mkramlich on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @05:00PM (#1512730)

I did not interpret the title as "[Two] Ideas Having Sex" I interpreted it as "Ideas [Had While] Having Sex." But there was no sex in the article. Therefore, I concluded that the title included sex merely for the titilation factor and to boost readership. Thus, as I originally said, it looked misleading to me. And my comment was relevant and intended to be useful.

Also, I don't think there's anything wrong with concise, specific criticism about a submitted article if the intent is to help improve the quality of HN as a resource. YMMV.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ideas Having Sex by Semiapies on Tuesday July 13, 2010 @05:11PM (#1512770)

Please.

Your misreading the title is no grounds for whining about link-baiting, and offering it as an excuse indicates you did not bother to actually read the article in any detail.

YMMV, but I don't see anything useful about "tl;dr: nobody has sex in article"-style remarks, no matter how you frame them. I want to see fewer of such, and I will continue to try to discourage them, but I will not further respond to you in this thread.

[ Parent | on HN ]