Well we've got a solid one now, at least! Very clear.
But I totally get the judgement of the previous editor as well. When in doubt, and given a poor headline (nah, it didn't say .com), go with the headline of the article that is linked. It's a good rule of thumb, and this was the exception.
Thanks for rolling with the punches, whoever is pulling strings.
But I totally get the judgement of the previous editor as well. When in doubt, and given a poor headline (nah, it didn't say .com), go with the headline of the article that is linked. It's a good rule of thumb, and this was the exception.
Thanks for rolling with the punches, whoever is pulling strings.