I don’t know why you think this belongs in discussion. It is a content post, written specifically with main in mind. The title, the fact that it has an attention-getting opening, summary at the end, multiple examples, specific point… I posted to discussion because I wanted feedback and I figured I could keep the karma accumulated (but not get it multiplied by 10, that was news to me—my expectation was that the post would go back to 0 and people who liked it could upvote it again).
Same reason I thought On Saying the Obvious ought to stay in Discussion. It is a community advice post, doesn’t teach anything but rather admonishes.
I also think this post is long-winded and could use a lot of trimming down, which is an okay flaw for a discussion post but something I’m not willing to tolerate in Main.
And yes it is also possible that my preferences for Main articles is atypical, but that doesn’t mean I should let them be crushed under the majority-boot.
Thank you for the specific criticisms. Upon rereading the post, I notice it is longer than I thought it was when I was writing it. But I’m not confident that it needs editing or that trimming would make it better as opposed to worse. It does endeavor to teach how to spot inflationary term use, not just exhort to avoid doing so. That’s the point of multiple diverse examples (and part of the reason it is so long).
I don’t know why you think this belongs in discussion. It is a content post, written specifically with main in mind. The title, the fact that it has an attention-getting opening, summary at the end, multiple examples, specific point… I posted to discussion because I wanted feedback and I figured I could keep the karma accumulated (but not get it multiplied by 10, that was news to me—my expectation was that the post would go back to 0 and people who liked it could upvote it again).
Same reason I thought On Saying the Obvious ought to stay in Discussion. It is a community advice post, doesn’t teach anything but rather admonishes.
I also think this post is long-winded and could use a lot of trimming down, which is an okay flaw for a discussion post but something I’m not willing to tolerate in Main.
And yes it is also possible that my preferences for Main articles is atypical, but that doesn’t mean I should let them be crushed under the majority-boot.
Thank you for the specific criticisms. Upon rereading the post, I notice it is longer than I thought it was when I was writing it. But I’m not confident that it needs editing or that trimming would make it better as opposed to worse. It does endeavor to teach how to spot inflationary term use, not just exhort to avoid doing so. That’s the point of multiple diverse examples (and part of the reason it is so long).