Well, using just "Associates Compensation Overview" as is the title of the page would not be very informative since this is about a change in the page, so I prefer it the way OP wrote it.
---
Edit: Then again, I don't see any difference between the current version of the page [1] and what it looked like in a previous version archived 2016-08-26 [2].
Edit 2: Never mind the above two links. The apparent lack of change is due to some problem with Archive.org. Link [2] is using an image from today [3] for some reason, and it's not even the same archived version [4] on link [1]?! The one used on link [2] is from 2017-02-24 19:03:14 according to the timestamp in the URL, whereas the one for today is from 2017-02-24 18:59:28 according to the timestamp for that image. (Both of these timestamps are probably UTC I'd venture to guess.) Maybe Archive.org was missing the image for some reason and it was refetched when I loaded the old snapshot?
By the way, are the rest of you seeing this as well?
I think the point was more: the OP clearly has an opinion here, but it's not written and those of us who know zilch about the Amazon affiliate market aren't able to intuit it.
Spell it out, basically. What are we looking at and why do we care?
I suppose you are right about that. Personally I think the title implies:
- Lower prices on electronics for consumers.
- Loss of profits for people relying on income from affiliate program on electronics.
And furthermore I think both of these kinds of people are found in large quantities among the HN crowd relative to the population at large.
But I might be mistaken in my understanding so in that sense I think you are right that an article that explained what was meant would make sense.
Perhaps OP felt that doing so would only get them labeled as submitting blogspam? Or perhaps OP is not comfortable with writing? Or perhaps OP wanted to share this quickly without having to put a lot of effort into it. Only OP knows the reason probably.
I think perhaps it'd been better if OP submitted a text-post with an explanation, or at least wrote a comment about the change ITT.
---
Edit: Then again, I don't see any difference between the current version of the page [1] and what it looked like in a previous version archived 2016-08-26 [2].
[1]: http://web.archive.org/web/20170224190305/https://affiliate-...
[2]: http://web.archive.org/web/20160826220446/https://affiliate-...
---
Edit 2: Never mind the above two links. The apparent lack of change is due to some problem with Archive.org. Link [2] is using an image from today [3] for some reason, and it's not even the same archived version [4] on link [1]?! The one used on link [2] is from 2017-02-24 19:03:14 according to the timestamp in the URL, whereas the one for today is from 2017-02-24 18:59:28 according to the timestamp for that image. (Both of these timestamps are probably UTC I'd venture to guess.) Maybe Archive.org was missing the image for some reason and it was refetched when I loaded the old snapshot?
By the way, are the rest of you seeing this as well?
[3]: http://web.archive.org/web/20170224190314im_/https://images-...
[4]: http://web.archive.org/web/20170224185928im_/https://images-...