[ascar]

Why was that title editorialized as "around 83.4%"?

83.4% of 500 is exactly 417. The article is also exact about these numbers. No need to add "around".

Edit: Why was the title editorialized to begin with?

Edit2: looks like the title was updated to the original. Thanks.

[graiz]

The article says that there may be other domains that it didn't catch because it wasn't the first result in google or the company has the server on a different domain, so it's likely a slight undercount.

[ascar]

So "at least" would still have been a more accurate wording.

[Retric]

That 417 is probably low. It’s hard to prove that nobody in a giant organization is using some tool, but conversely that undercuts the such statistics. If say 0.01% of Walmart’s employees are using X because of a recent acquisition then that’s hardly an endorsement of X by Walmart.

[darkstar_16]

Nit picking much, are we ?

[ascar]

HN Guidelines:

"If the title contains a gratuitous number or number + adjective, we'd appreciate it if you'd crop it. E.g. translate "10 Ways To Do X" to "How To Do X," and "14 Amazing Ys" to "Ys." Exception: when the number is meaningful, e.g. "The 5 Platonic Solids."

Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."

This is directly against the guidelines and how article titles should be submitted. Editorialization of titles is heavily discouraged and here it even says something the article doesn't. Not at all a nitpick imho.

[kzrdude]

The article could use significant figures better at least. No reason to not say 83% or even "at least 80%" (would be my pick, to reflect the roundness of the number).