I think this is kinda missing the point: that what might look "incorrect" in one version of English is perfectly common and acceptable, maybe even "correct", in another. There is no one universal definition of "correct English". There is no one single English, even more so than in languages that at least have regulatory agencies (language academies).
Each English-speaking region comes up with their own rules, perhaps initially descended from a group of British or American emigrants, but evolving over time to form their own variants. It happened from the slave trade, it happened from the age of sail, it happened in Hawaii, in the American South, in the American West, in the Philippines, in India, in South Africa... they all speak subtly different variants, with different rules.
There is no universally correct use of English. There are various rules documented in various dictionaries and grammar/style guides, and reinforced by teachers and higher-class people of various societies, but those are descriptive, after-the-fact illustrations that follow the evolving language, not the other way around.
It's one thing to say that a child's usage of language is incorrect because they haven't learned it yet, within a certain cultural context. It's another thing entirely to presume that your region's usage of English is the only "correct" one. There's no such thing.
Examples (American vs British):
"Data is" vs "data are"
"Do you have a car?" vs "Have you got a car?"
"I already saw that film" vs "I've already seen that film"
etc.
For the blog title in question (which isn't an American vs British difference, to be clear, but possibly an Indian English construction -- not sure), the sentence is perfectly clear, with or without the "did". There isn't some weird ambiguity about it, especially in the context of a tech blog. I agree that it sounds strange to American/British ears, but it's not really "incorrect", it's just a regional stylistic difference -- or so we surmise. Give it 50 years' worth of population growth and migrations, and that construction might very well become the more common one, leaving the American and British versions sounding quaint and foreign.
Now, maybe a related question is whether the writer should've written in the American style, kinda like how many foreign English singers will emulate an American accent. In that case it's not a question of correctness anymore, but of adapting your communications for a cross-cultural context and targeting a specific group of English users and their traditions. I'm not arguing that the author should or should not have done that, just that their choice wasn't "incorrect". Just different from what we're used to.
We get it languages diverge and branch into different languages, that's how they have evolved. French English and German and Spanish all have common ancestry (right?).
Problem is if it's not clear (to your audience) which language you are using. I'm not saying that is what happened here. I'm concerned about the general principle "it does not matter really". Yes it doesn't, so much that we should nitpick about it. But it does in giving us guidance as to what we should strive towards. If the audience is international it is best to not use use a specific dialect from a specific region of the world.
It's not "incorrect" or "correct". The question is would it be easier to transfer the information you are trying to transfer by using the most common, most shared dialect of English.
There isn't a strict "most common" dialect of English, it just depends on audience and context. Wikipedia deals with this all the time when articles are written in a mix of Britishisms and American English and some later editor tries to normalize it to one or the other, but then some other English user adds another construction that's in neither, and so forth.
It maybe used to be the case that the internet was primarily American English, but that can't be assumed anymore.
When a British person writes "colour", it looks wrong to me but it's not my place to "correct" them. That would be rude, dumb, arrogant, and ignorant all at once. "Two countries divided by a common language", so they say, except now there are far more than two. Blame colonialism, I guess?
As for the blog audience, maybe they were targeting an international viewership, or even a primarily Indian one (their immigrant tech peers)? In that case, it would be weird to speak American instead of their native English. Like whatever the Indian version of an Uncle Tom would be.
In this case I think this construction is both common enough and clear enough that maybe it's the Americans who should get used to it, rather than demanding that a country five times bigger change their habits to meet our preferences...
Each English-speaking region comes up with their own rules, perhaps initially descended from a group of British or American emigrants, but evolving over time to form their own variants. It happened from the slave trade, it happened from the age of sail, it happened in Hawaii, in the American South, in the American West, in the Philippines, in India, in South Africa... they all speak subtly different variants, with different rules.
There is no universally correct use of English. There are various rules documented in various dictionaries and grammar/style guides, and reinforced by teachers and higher-class people of various societies, but those are descriptive, after-the-fact illustrations that follow the evolving language, not the other way around.
It's one thing to say that a child's usage of language is incorrect because they haven't learned it yet, within a certain cultural context. It's another thing entirely to presume that your region's usage of English is the only "correct" one. There's no such thing.
Examples (American vs British):
"Data is" vs "data are"
"Do you have a car?" vs "Have you got a car?"
"I already saw that film" vs "I've already seen that film" etc.
color vs colour, trunk vs boot, etc. more examples here: https://www.thoughtco.com/differences-between-american-and-b...
For the blog title in question (which isn't an American vs British difference, to be clear, but possibly an Indian English construction -- not sure), the sentence is perfectly clear, with or without the "did". There isn't some weird ambiguity about it, especially in the context of a tech blog. I agree that it sounds strange to American/British ears, but it's not really "incorrect", it's just a regional stylistic difference -- or so we surmise. Give it 50 years' worth of population growth and migrations, and that construction might very well become the more common one, leaving the American and British versions sounding quaint and foreign.
Now, maybe a related question is whether the writer should've written in the American style, kinda like how many foreign English singers will emulate an American accent. In that case it's not a question of correctness anymore, but of adapting your communications for a cross-cultural context and targeting a specific group of English users and their traditions. I'm not arguing that the author should or should not have done that, just that their choice wasn't "incorrect". Just different from what we're used to.