Originally Posted by Alfiejr
Sorry to hear your morning's off to a rough start. You may consider cutting back on the coffee.
headlines and text copy are changed by editors.
That may be. And it may also be that writers write their own words.
So far all you've offered is your own conjecture about who actually wrote the piece, and who altered it, but have provided no links to any -- as AnkleSkater would require -- "authoritative source". It's just stuff you're typing.
If don't have any actual information you can share a link to with us, perhaps you could write her for the confirmation of your conjecture?
Please do let us know what she says, and if it's any different from what she wrote earlier, kindly ask her why she chose to present things differently for her public readers.
"was asked" is not how she would say "Google asked me." she means her boss.
Thank you for demonstrating for us your unusual ability to read minds.
But with this demonstration now we must all wonder: if she wrote "was asked" when she really meant, as you suggested in your previous sentence, "my editors rewrote my sentence for me", then what else could she mean that would contradict otherwise-self-evident phrases?
Once we decide that what was written was not what she meant, all sorts of things are possible.
For example, when she wrote "Google refused to comment on the record" could she really have meant to say, "Google is run by magic unicorns who communicate via telepathic talents learned from their alien overlords, so while they didn't write a statement they did send their alien emissaries to convey the message on their behalf"?
Perhaps where she wrote her name she really meant to write "Dead Elvis"?
This is fun. Thanks for suggesting this. Please ignore my earlier suggestion about coffee. It suits you.
the rest of her comment, here, makes it clear she does not agree with the change:
"For the people asking how the story was amended: Despite the fact that Google refused to comment on the record, I was asked to change the headline (both the homepage headline and SEO headline inside the story), as well as the standfirst and lead (first paragraph). Google's issue was with the use of the word "flaw". Apparently a system that is designed to share users information with developers without their knowledge or permission and without explicitly saying so in any terms of service is not considered to be a flaw. I have no problem amending stories if they are factually incorrect but the fact is neither developers nor customers were aware of this information sharing and Mr Nolan is not the only developer to express concern over having this information at his disposal. There's little reason app developers should have this information. If Google was going to share this information they should have been clear about this from the start. Hope this clears things up."
Thank you for taking the time to quote the full text of her comment so we can all see for ourselves that the word "editor" doesn't appear in her text at all.
Whether her editors asked her or Google did is indeed undefined. But think about it: if her editors asked her, then that would mean two things that rather dull your point:
1. Google isn't the party applying what you believe is the "pressure" she never actually mentions herself but which you, perhaps through your well-established mind-reading, have somehow discerned on your own.
2. If her editors felt her original wording was inappropriate, it may simply be the case that her original wording was inappropriate.
Of course, as you've reminded us, we live in a world of secret meanings, in which things that are written aren't at all how it happened, and the true meanings are as limitless as one's imagination.
So she could indeed be wrong, as you suggest.
you have polluted this thread with your petty nit-picking argumentative Google apologia. like the guy in a bar who will never shut up. go home, it's closing time.
Given your conjecture, that's rich. Sorry to see you go, though. It's been fun.
Edited by MacRulez - 2/19/13 at 11:02am