there was a bit more to my comment than a “this title is bad.”

do you know of gannett? legitimately curious.

The thesis of your comment seems to be that Gannet should have been in the title, with your other two points being supporting evidence.

I've never heard of Gannet before today.

I don't really mean much by the downvote. It's a personal pet peeve of mine when people comment on the headline, and I think it's against the spirit of this part of the guidelines:

> Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.

My downvote definitely didn't mean that I didn't think there was something substantive to say about Gannet's involvement, or that I disagreed.

(The guidelines also tell us not to talk about voting, which I'm breaking of course, but I do try to respond when people genuinely want to know why I voted a certain way. I understand why that part of the guidelines exist, but I have mixed feelings about it, I don't see how else people are meant to know why they were downvoted.)

> I've never heard of Gannet before today.

this is my very point, and it is anything but tangential.

thank you.