[shardling]

How is it wrong?

Their original website was taken offline by a (now former) developer, forcing them to change domains. Seems like the title is perfectly accurate.

[jeffool]

Because the title doesn't say "the website" was taken offline. It suggests CyanogenMod itself is no longer available from the developer.

Imagine the headline "LA Lakers Closes!" That tells me the basketball team is no more. But, if instead their website was closed for a planned relaunch, then the headline should read "LA Lakers' Website Closes!" or "LALakers.com Closes!"

[shardling]

Ah, could have sworn the headline said cyanogenmod.com.

Anyway, the current headline is now more misleading, since it omits what makes the story interesting, and they aim to get the original domain back in any case. (This is the case even though the blog post has that same title.)

[jeffool]

Well we've got a solid one now, at least! Very clear.

But I totally get the judgement of the previous editor as well. When in doubt, and given a poor headline (nah, it didn't say .com), go with the headline of the article that is linked. It's a good rule of thumb, and this was the exception.

Thanks for rolling with the punches, whoever is pulling strings.

[zetx]

It's confusing at the very least. "CyanogenMod [domain] taken offline by developer" vs "CyanogenMod [project] taken offline by developer"

[bmasci]

This. My first thought was that CM was no longer available. I did not think anything of the domain.

[janus]

Obligatory reference http://xkcd.com/932/

[lambda]

And it wan't by a developer. It was by a rogue admin. "By developer" implies that it was done by one of the core Cyanogenmod developers, perhaps even Cyanogen himself.