1

This question was edited but I do not understand why. This shows the revisions. I found revision 2, the removal of the 14.04 tag, to be rather subjective but acceptable. However, revision 3 doesn't make sense to me.

The original title was more adequate and I liked the structure of the question with the bullet points. The problem was clearly stated and a question was asked. There was even a nice picture illustrating the issue.

From when should I edit posts:

Edits are expected to be substantial and to leave the post better than you found it. Common reasons for edits include:

  • To fix grammar and spelling mistakes
  • To clarify the meaning of the post (without changing that meaning) [emphasis added]
  • To include additional information only found in comments, so all of the information relevant to the post is contained in one place
  • To correct minor mistakes or add updates as the post ages
  • To add related resources or hyperlinks

I do like the shadow added to the image. As for the rest, is this a case of gratuitous editing?


(Note: not a bashing attempt.)

5

I don't think it was completely without reason.

  • The title makes more pertinent; this is about DDG in Firefox, nothing else.
  • There was no good reason for separating two paragraphs with bullets; they're not a list.
  • The question about why there's a t=... querystring item needed bringing into the main question rather than leaving as a side-bar at the end (you might not want want to remove it if it were important).
  • As you mention, the shadow removes ambiguity between the page (which is a white background) and the DDG element which is also mostly white.

You could argue whether or not fixing these things makes a measurable improvement worthy of the time that went into them but Aditya isn't getting anything for performing the edit. I don't think it's unfair to assume that they only have the best interest of you and the question in mind.

  • 1
    The title is not more pertinent. I wanted to know how to remove it, the why was a secondary question (which is why it was in braces at the bottom of the question). The current title emphasizes the why instead of the how and that was not the main issue I was attempting to solve. I would have accepted an answer without the why but not without the how. I'd suspect others are also more interested in knowing how to get rid of the t=canonical than on why it is there, not that I have made a survey on public opinion about it. – Daniel Feb 27 '15 at 21:40
  • 1
    Call me old fashioned but why would you want to remove something if you don't know what it is our does? – Oli Feb 27 '15 at 23:43
  • "Call me old fashioned but why would you want to remove something if you don't know what it is our does?" -- I inferred from the looks of it that it was used to track me and that's enough for me to want to remove it, but I wanted to understand why. In other words, why is Canonical including tracking strings in my searches without explicitly asking me about it first. It reminds me of the so-called online search results that were sending my data to Amazon. I like to believe Ubuntu still puts users' privacy ahead of $$$. – Daniel Feb 28 '15 at 7:01
  • Either which way (given "canonical" is an English word that could determine a type of search), identifying should be a core part of a good question and answer. I'm not saying asking how to remove it (if bad) is a good idea. My "more pertinent" was really about adding Firefox and DDG to the title because it isn't in all browsers on all search engines. – Oli Feb 28 '15 at 15:25
  • Thank you for the clarification. Although Firefox+DDG are mentioned in the body I agree they should have also been included in the title. – Daniel Feb 28 '15 at 15:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .