I wonder if this will affect nokia's support of maemo (uses gtk+ toolkit)... I had the idea/wish they would eventually integrate maemo into their line of smart phones.
Hed: "Nokia purchases 67% of Trolltech's stock for $103 million"
Misleading submission headline. Nokia plans to buy all of Trolltech. The release just mentions that 66.43% (not 67%) of shares have already irrevocably accepted the offer, making it essentially a done deal. The full price is reported elsewhere as $153 million.
Yes, it's misleading. It made it look like some stock in Trolltech is not part of the deal, like it's something other than an outright acquisition. Out of curiosity, I clicked, only to read that the real story is that (pending small details) Nokia is acquiring ALL of Trolltech for $153 million.
There's no "67%", no fractional stock purchase, no "$103 million".
The bad headline wasted my time.
Why not just keep the original article headline unless you're improving the accuracy?
It's not great, but there is both a 67% and a $103 million. 67% of people have agreed to sell their shares to nokia for a total of 103 million, so far.
"The acquisition is subject to customary closing conditions, including acceptance by shareholders representing more than 90 % of the fully diluted share capital"
They want to buy at least 90% of the company. 67% is already confirmed. If they don't get 90%, there won't be a deal. So you can't say "Nokia purchases 67% of Trolltech's stock"
No, there's not even a 67%. There's a 66.43%, which is (1) an irrelevant detail; and (2) rounds down to 66% if you feel like rounding.
Search Google News for 'Trolltech'. There are dozens of examples of good, accurate headlines for this event from dozens of publications. None have the inaccurate figures or misleading implication of your headline.
Accurate headlines are about the nicest thing you can do for fellow readers.
If the deal goes through then Nokia will own 100% of Trolltech so its not just a stock purchase. Definitely not the best headline, but I found the term misleading kind of insulting.
You shouldn't get offended by the term misleading, we all see a ton of posts on different sites every day, and maintaining the titles accuracy can help us as readers save our brain cycles and help decide which articles to read.
No insult was intended with the term 'misleading' -- it was a description of the headline sentence itself, and not about the author or the author's intentions.
Can you suggest a better term for describing a headline that has a high risk of creating mistaken impressions in readers?
For the record, you're right the title is misleading and I shouldn't have been offended. I've got a nasty ear infection and my judgement is clearly off. My apologies.
