Yes, but at some point what each one calls something stops, and they have to face objective reality.

Now, if you were talking about bad syntax/grammar/spelling, a blinking grey font over a white background, or something like it, yes, we could count that as "attention to detail". But not reading an article because of a mismatch with the title and it's URL (which isn't even targeted at humans) is an attention to useless detail, i.e to a triviality. I don't think there are "ifs and buts" about it.

>And your remark about OCD is offensive.

I'm sorry for that. But it could also be true. And those kinds of things are a sure-fire sign.

In which case, would it be less offensive (because it would then be just an observation) or more (because it would be tactless to point it out)?

Then again, I was trying to defend the article (which I found quite good) from a non warranted attacked over something less than a typo.

(Not that it's a big deal, I have some myself).