This headline is almost incoherent, I wish they’d stop teaching journalists about newspaper shorthand headlines. We’re not limited to broadleaf sized headlines any more, just put some fucking words in there so it makes sense.
Staff members were told of GAME’s impending change to force staff onto zero hours contracts, first reported yesterday by Eurogamer, via mass video calls held on Microsoft Teams.
I have a very hard time understanding these headlines, but I normally blame it on my English (English isn’t my first language), but good to know that that’s not the case. Reading them twice or more doesn’t help. I just give up and let it go.
I got to ask, has reading comprehension really come down that much in the recent decades?
Could the title be expanded to be more prosaic? Sure!
But at the same time, it’s intuitively and entirely understandable.
Who? GAME staff
What? Discovered something
What exactly? That they’re moving to zero hour contracts
How? Via a mass Microsoft Teams call
Or, written together, the title up above. And that’s a completely normal sentence structure, it’s essentially how your brain should expect a sentence conveying that information to be structured, or the final part would be at the start (“Via a mass microsoft teams call…”).
What exactly? That they’re moving to zero hour contracts
This isnt what the headline says though. “Discovered zero hour contracts” isnt how normal people speak. I have no clue if a mass teams call means they discovered some people were already on contracts, or that they were moving everyone to them, or some people, or (not knowing what a zero hour contract is) that the company has new contracts with game publishers.
You took your own understanding of the headline and even in your “its simple” added details that weren’t there originally.
I just find it weird that you felt compelled to post an explanation for something that is “intuitively and entirely understandable”. It’s almost as if you knew that lots of people couldn’t understand it.
Sure, but while I understand the sentence structure I still don’t know what it’s talking about without the article itself
I think the point they are making is that we use these short titles even though we don’t need to. It might be correct, but why not make better use of the medium
Are you paid to craft distraction posts? The headline and article are clear but your post (clearly upvoted by bots) is now the point of discussion (likely some responders are also the same bot accounts).
How much do you earn in service of corporate interests?
Who do you think is paying random Lemmy users to complain about headlines on news articles? Seriously, who do you imagine is behind such a ridiculous conspiracy? Where is the value in such activity?
Also, upvotes are public. We can see who upvoted him, and it wasn’t bots.
Feel free to come up with your own thesis for the behaviour then. Why do you think a bunch of discussion has formed around a falsehood where all the parties of that discussion seem to agree and yet none have discussed the subject matter at all.
Feel free to come up with your own thesis for the behaviour then.
People upvoted him because they agree with him. Not that hard to figure out.
Why do you think a bunch of discussion has formed around a falsehood where all the parties of that discussion seem to agree and yet none have discussed the subject matter at all.
Because the headline is trash, hence the conversation at hand.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Sub for any gaming related content!
Rules:
1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy “anti-woke” energy, you probably shouldn’t be posting it here.
3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.
This headline is almost incoherent, I wish they’d stop teaching journalists about newspaper shorthand headlines. We’re not limited to broadleaf sized headlines any more, just put some fucking words in there so it makes sense.
Yes, even just the first paragraph makes sense.
I have a very hard time understanding these headlines, but I normally blame it on my English (English isn’t my first language), but good to know that that’s not the case. Reading them twice or more doesn’t help. I just give up and let it go.
It’s honestly a problem for native speakers. So many times headlines make no sense or are extremely misleading.
I got to ask, has reading comprehension really come down that much in the recent decades?
Could the title be expanded to be more prosaic? Sure!
But at the same time, it’s intuitively and entirely understandable.
Who? GAME staff
What? Discovered something
What exactly? That they’re moving to zero hour contracts
How? Via a mass Microsoft Teams call
Or, written together, the title up above. And that’s a completely normal sentence structure, it’s essentially how your brain should expect a sentence conveying that information to be structured, or the final part would be at the start (“Via a mass microsoft teams call…”).
This isnt what the headline says though. “Discovered zero hour contracts” isnt how normal people speak. I have no clue if a mass teams call means they discovered some people were already on contracts, or that they were moving everyone to them, or some people, or (not knowing what a zero hour contract is) that the company has new contracts with game publishers.
You took your own understanding of the headline and even in your “its simple” added details that weren’t there originally.
See? I understood it that GAME staff discovered that zero hours contracts (whatever that is) move via team calls (wherever, and however that happens).
So much to reading comprehension. That title is trash.
I just find it weird that you felt compelled to post an explanation for something that is “intuitively and entirely understandable”. It’s almost as if you knew that lots of people couldn’t understand it.
Sure, but while I understand the sentence structure I still don’t know what it’s talking about without the article itself
I think the point they are making is that we use these short titles even though we don’t need to. It might be correct, but why not make better use of the medium
Are you paid to craft distraction posts? The headline and article are clear but your post (clearly upvoted by bots) is now the point of discussion (likely some responders are also the same bot accounts).
How much do you earn in service of corporate interests?
I don’t think it’s a conspiracy, but it is definitely odd.
In my opinion, the headline is very clear.
Who do you think is paying random Lemmy users to complain about headlines on news articles? Seriously, who do you imagine is behind such a ridiculous conspiracy? Where is the value in such activity?
Also, upvotes are public. We can see who upvoted him, and it wasn’t bots.
How can you possibly know if an account is or is not a bot in this age of LLMs?
And the value is where it’s always been - astroturfing.
You tell us, you’re the one saying the other guy was “clearly upvoted by bots”, you show us how you came to that conclusion, chief.
https://lemmy.fmhy.ml/post/235195
https://github.com/SleeplessOne1917/lemmy-bot
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36396510
“Bots exist” isn’t an answer to “prove that post was upvoted by bots”.
Quit being obnoxious, my guy.
Feel free to come up with your own thesis for the behaviour then. Why do you think a bunch of discussion has formed around a falsehood where all the parties of that discussion seem to agree and yet none have discussed the subject matter at all.
People upvoted him because they agree with him. Not that hard to figure out.
Because the headline is trash, hence the conversation at hand.
I read the article and it’s not really any more clear.