I'm tired of being (metaphorically) Rick-Rolled here in GD

[MissMillie]

Any post that has a title that does not give me some sense as to the contents of that post is, for all intents and purposes, a "Rick Roll." I could be clicking on "Never Going to Give You Up."

Heck, even the animal/pet posts in the Lounge (almost always) indicate what you're going to get when you click on the post.

Somehow, in GD, there's no such consideration.

I realize that it's not only possible, but highly probable that no one in the DU community gives a rat's backside whether or not little-old-insignificant-me clicks on their posts. So, this isn't a threat--but I'm NEVER again going to click on any GD post that has a title that obscures the post's content.

It's like inviting me to a party without telling me that the party is an orgy/rave/church service/Amway convention, gynecological exam, Barney sing-a-long, hunting trip with Dick Cheney... (you name it)

I've been a member of DU for 19 years, and I keep coming back because I really do think of us as a community. As such, I do my best to treat everyone with respect and consideration. I think it's disrespectful and inconsiderate to ask our community to click on a "Discussion" post without giving the community some sense of what they're going to get when they click. (Maybe somewhat more forgivable in the Lounge, but even so I'm not much of a fan of this behavior.)

[True Dough]

1. Sorry to hear this

[Ohio Joe]

2. Heh

[NullTuples]

65. I mean, the title of the OP does NOT say why they feel Rickrolled so this is kinda appropriate...

[jcgoldie]

3. Man... those would be some SHITTY parties!

I wouldn't go either! Well maybe an orgy I dunno depends if I'm drunk... sorry just teasing.

[mopinko]

4. i dont mind that as much as the naked links.

i mean, sometimes the link has words that help, but…
and i dont mind tweet posts, but when the subject is the entire text of the tweet, yeah, rick rolled is a good way to put it.

i also get a tad annoyed at folks who post videos in gd, instead of v&m. if i want to watched a vid, i go to that forum. when it’s gd, i expect to read. understand du4 will put all vids in 1 place, which will be good.

[Warpy]

37. I'm gulty of videos in GD and LBN, but usually in answer to another post

and people who don't want the video can skip it, I usually post enough commentary for that.

I agree about the naked links, especially Twitter links with no text or commentary, just a clickbait headline and a naked link. Kiddies, we're not all on cell phones with Twitter constantly loaded and that sucker of a site takes forfuckingever to load. Life is short, and ours might be really short, so if you can't be arsed to make a proper post, KNOCK IT OFF. Don't make me come over there!

Maybe the solution is to make a separate forum for the wit and wisdom of Twitter, where naked links could be flung about with abandon.

I said a long time ago that Twitter was going to make DU start to suck, and by gawd, I was right.

I will say one thing has improved greatly, the TURN ON (cable news channel) RIGHT NOW posts with no content have disappeared. Those were my pet peeve for a long time because by the time the poster had hit "send" on content that thin, the segment was over. Those have largely disappeared in favor of video posted a couple of hours later if it was really that urgent.

So good work there, folks.

[TexLaProgressive]

105. Someone who posts in bird watchers prefaces videos

With a little image of a video start arrow. I don't know where they get it, but it's very nice.
As in this link:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/12089418

[Warpy]

107. Nice. Some people have the ambition to gank symbols and smilies off various sites

and save the links to use in their posts. I'm too old and grumpy to bother.

I always provide some context for videos I post in GD and LBN. I figure the "play" arrow on the video is sufficient.

[TexLaProgressive]

125. It's nice that the play arrow graphic is in the subject line

[debm55]

113. I enjoy the animal post in the Lounge. They are the first posts I go to in the morning.

[H2O Man]

120. Hey!!!!!

I rarely post while without clothes!

[mopinko]

124. well, i'm sorry to hear that.

a girl can dream.

[Effete Snob]

5. There are posters who simply farm DU for clicks

A lot of the clickbait headlines originate with a relatively small number of posters who, for whatever reason, do not actually contribute any of their own opinions, thoughts, or observations, but who seem to be motivated merely to drive clicks from DU to other sites, monetized YouTube channels by wannabe pundits, etc..

You might think about using the "ignore" feature on those sorts of posts, and you'll be surprised how ignoring just a few people really cuts down on the amount of clickbait bullshit you encounter on DU.

[MissMillie]

9. What parameters could one use to filter out such posts?

I wouldn't even know how to begin to create such a filter.

[Mosby]

16. He's suggesting using the full ignore function.

On posters you deem worthy, lol.

[ChazInAz]

77. I'm a reader.

My hearing has always been very bad, so most videos are lost on me if there's no "caption option". And if the poster doesn't even give a hint what it's about, I'm out.

[Orrex]

64. It would be greatly helpful to require that all "Link to Tweet" votes be confined to one group

If I wanted to read tweets or retweets, I'd hop on Elon's little platform.

[Warpy]

70. Click on a serial offender's post

Next to the screen name, you'll see some little figures. The one on the far right with the red "X" is the ignore link, which will take you to a screen that asks you if you want partial or full ignore. Click on the one you want.

If you want to take someone off the ignore list, to to "my account" on the very top of the screen. There are links above your profile and "ignore list" is one back from the far right.

I haven't flung any clickbait people into the Ignoratorium as yet, but they're teetering on the brink.

I almost typed "twittering on the brink." Bad girl.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

20. There was one poster who would share a thought provoking title

Then link to his unrelated blog post where he would trash Democrats or write something racist. Took a while for him to get weeded out.

[OneGrassRoot]

18. I just had a "duh" moment...

And it's in keeping with your DU name...lol.

I've been a member since 2004 and a lurker before then. I was actively involved in this space for many, many years.

Over the last six years or so, I've bemoaned the quality of posts and habits, making this is a frustrating space to navigate for me. I have always used DU as an excellent curation resource for news, fact-based opinion, and meaningful discourse. I still come here longing for that -- and out of pure habit -- but find myself frustrated every day for the many reasons others have posted about lately.

Your post brings me to my "duh" moment. In the early years, social media sites weren't nearly as ubiquitous. People would pose a thoughtful, usually informed question or comment or a link to a generally respected resource, and people would then discuss, sharing intelligent, informative links when applicable. It is when the sharing of FB and twitter posts became commonplace that much of this disappeared and the newer frustrating (for many of us) habits manifested: Subject lines being very clickbait-y (even if it's simply mimicking the article or tweet's headline), a plethora of nicknames resulting in many comments simply asking "What are you talking about???", subject lines and OP with very little info resulting in many comments simply asking "What are you talking about? We aren't psychic!" and other irritants. lol

It's when DU became infected with the negative aspects of other social media sites that the quality of posts and interactions here started going downhill, in my opinion. Only my opinion, of course. It's helpful for me to identify how and when that started to happen, so thanks.

I don't think it's going to change so I need to adjust my expectations.

[PatSeg]

28. That makes sense

[I_UndergroundPanther]

131. I remember DU1

I remember the discussions were great back then. I remember posting my thoughts here late at night. It seemed like a much more intimate community back then.
Then the orange baboon's election and DU got hacked and I lost my original screen name. I found out since I came back,I have been here 6 years. But I was here when Clinton was prez. A few months before bush.

DU was incredible back then.

[claudette]

6. I understand what

you said and agree but I had to Google what “Rickrolled meant. That’s one of my pet peeves - people using uncommon words, phrases or abbreviations with no explanation of them.

[MissMillie]

13. I apologize for that

I truly didn't think the phrase "Rick Rolled" was uncommon. (Maybe I'm showing my age.)

[claudette]

56. No need to apologize

I was just expressing a pet peeve which I think many of us do have at least one!!🤤❣️

[ShazzieB]

76. I get that.

I find it amusingly ironic, though, that some of us (including myself) felt the need to google that reference. In my case, I had heard the term before but didn’t know what it meant, and I often click things I'm not familiar with, just because I'm terminally curious.

[claudette]

95. Me too

🙂

[dweller]

25. It's a paradox ...

The Astley Paradox: If you ask Rick Astley for his copy of the movie Up, he cannot give it to you as he will never give you Up. However, in doing so he lets you down. Thus creating the Astley Paradox

✌🏻

[Gidney N Cloyd]

27. :)

[MissMillie]

42. That's very clever!

Good job.

[dweller]

46. It's from the internets

from several yrs ago …


✌🏻

[PCIntern]

45. Terrific!!!

[claudette]

57. I had no idea

Thank you

[nolabear]

59. Nice.

And by “Nice” I mean I approve of your clever riff on Rickrolling which, humorously, includes itself a Rickroll.

In case I was being vague. 😏

[TigressDem]

44. The only way you learn....

IF you wander out of your age group, the common phrases change.

BUT that is a good thing.

When I was young there were these things called "books" and dictionaries were "hard cover" so when I was reading a "book" and found a word I didn't know, I had to look it up and hope it was in the dictionary.

Even my MIL who is in her 80's prefers "googling it" so you can teach an old dog new tricks or a new pup the ways of the olden days.

EVERYTHING here on DU that is UNFAMILIAR is an opportunity for you to expand your mind.

IF you're up for that, it can actually be fun.

[claudette]

54. Agreed

😊

[3Hotdogs]

7. My complaint is about the constant video

Posts with titles that China is going out of business, or collapsing tomorrow, or at least in a week.

[Hekate]

68. Generally featuring ALL CAPS claims that someone was DESTROYED, DEVASTATED, MELTED DOWN

So bogus, so irritating, so clicky.

[Lisa0825]

109. This This This!!! I never click on those posts anymore! nt

[MontanaMama]

136. Oh yes.

And they usually come with a long tedious narrative video where no one is destroyed, devastated etc.

[Ocelot II]

8. I agree. I beg everyone, *please* don't keep posting stuff like:

"That idiot doesn't know what he's talking about." Thread title only, no text, no explanation, no names. Presumably the poster is outraged about something they are watching on TV and wants to vent about it, but we can't even help them vent if we don't know who the idiot is, what they said or where this occurred. Please don't do that.

Or a title like "Why do they keep doing this?" And the "something" is something stupid, irrelevant or unimportant.

Or the thread title is the title of a video that is not described. Usually the title is some tendentious crap with a lot of capitalizations, like "Trump spokesman DESTROYED" or "GOP Congressman HUMILIATED." You click on the thread and there's nothing but the link to the video, which was produced by some obscure dude in his basement making clickbaity videos with his iPhone, and it consists of the dude blathering for 20 minutes followed by a clip from a cable tv show in which nobody is destroyed or humiliated. Please don't waste our time with this junk, or at least post it in videos. This one is my pet peeve.

[Wicked Blue]

11. +100 nt

[AZSkiffyGeek]

15. I find the ones that spam a 1/2 dozen forums simultaneously frustrating

I understand it is to share as widely as possible, but there have been days when the first page Latest threads is four or five posts shared a 1/2 dozen times each by the same poster.

[Ocelot II]

94. I deal with that by hiding threads in all the forums but one.

That way I can read the post without having to see it over and over again. Just select the forum then choose Trash This Forum from the header, then select either Hide Threads or Trash Forum. I just select Hide Threads, which removes them from the Latest and Greatest pages without trashing the whole forum. So when I look at the Latest pages I'll see only one thread on the topic, not four or five.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

97. I'm hesitant to wholesale trash forums.

There may be interesting things to read. Ditto posters - about all I have trashed are people who only post ops linking back to their personal blogs or YouTube channels.
Is there a way to limit what shows in latest, without trashing forums?

[Ocelot II]

98. You don't have to trash the whole forum; you can just remove it

from the list that appears on the Latest or Greatest pages. It's still in your list of forums so you can read them if you want, but you don't have to see those repeated identical threads.

[Abolishinist]

130. Thanks for bringing this up. Several days ago I ALMOST responded with the question Why? to

one of six posts by the same member... same topic, same everything... spread across six different forums. Not only that, but this poster had done this for several other articles as well.

To me, this only takes away/detracts from the potential conversation because now it is spread over multiple threads, of which I'm only going to frequent one, as well as many others, the result being we miss what other posters have contributed to the discussion.

[oregonjen]

31. Indeed! This is my number one pet peeve!

At least time stamp it, to let us know WHEN in the video your titled op occurs!

[sarge43]

33. Yup. At least tell us which idiot. n/t

[Bernardo de La Paz]

43. Case in point: "Today's attacks": Ukraine? Electrical substations? Republican Sunday Show comments?

Not only is the title opaque, but so is the OP!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217542656

[themaguffin]

96. Agreed and I never click on anything where the word "DESTROYED" etc is used. It's weak clickbait for

nothing content.

[Prairie_Seagull]

10. Raising hand, Invite me MissMillie. Your parties sound good.

Not a Barney fan. Wait, being shot in the face does not sound like much fun either.

Agree with you major point.

[Mr. Evil]

36. Well, if Barney was shot in the face...

[brewens]

14. I try and use basic news headline rules when I post. You at least know who or what

it's about.

[judesedit]

19. Humans are not perfect. Still the best site

MissMillie, I do totally understand what you're saying. I go in go out if not what I expected. Let's be happy if that's our biggest complaint. Have a wonderful day.

[PatSeg]

34. One thing I especially like about DU

is it is capable of changing. When posters comment about some of their pet peeves, I've noticed that often the tone changes and people try harder. With a handful of exceptions, most people really do try to be considerate and take others preferences to heart.

[Initech]

21. Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down...

[usonian]

22. World to end by 9. Details on the 11 O'Clock News!

MSM comes to DU.

Are we held to a higher standard?
That ain't hard.

[MicaelS]

23. I hate the Twitter bots.

Post an interesting title only to find it is a Twitter link.

[claudette]

58. I never open

ANY naked link. Too dangerous for computers as I learned the hard way elsewhere

[Missiris]

61. Absolutely

I avoid twitter. Some things allow a "link to twitter" but others just "twitter," which I would have to join to see. The combination of vague titles and links are difficult for an old broad like me.

[Arthur_Frain]

24. Respectfully, that's what the trash button is for.

This is an opinion board, with very few guidelines and people will post as they feel prompted to. Some use the bait and click tricks they’ve been subjected to themselves, some don’t.

Very first thing I do? Run through and trash 4-5 threads that are absolutely not anything I want to see (usually shit about British royalty for me, but you do you), then I go look for interesting things without as much irritation. Notice I said “without as much”, you’re always going to find things here that stick in your craw.

Not trying to be smart ass, as this really helps my mentality when the subject I don’t care for becomes a pet rave here.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

30. You miss the point. You have to click on the bait to trash it. Wooooosh. . . . . nt

[Lars39]

32. Not necessarily...depends on settings and device.

[MissMillie]

38. Again, I don't know what criteria I could use to filter out non-descript post titles.

Seriously... what language could be used to filter those out?

I already said, I'm not clicking on them. I'm just not doing it. (And, as I said in my OP, that's not a threat. Most (if not all) people here probably don't care if I click on their posts or not.)

[Lars39]

53. Whoever wrote the OP maybe?

But the author of the OP that was your last straw (if it’s the one I think it is) would never do harm.

[MissMillie]

60. I think you're right.

If we're talking about the same OP, that poster is not typically like that... and indeed would never do harm.

Of course, checking the author of the OP is one way to get some information. But in this particular post, there wasn't even any information INSIDE the OP. Reading the link provided didn't give any information. There was positively NO WAY to know what the actual topic was.

I think my solution of not taking the bait is the only way to go. I may end up missing out on some good conversations and/or articles by not clicking on these vague post titles. My guess is that it's more likely that I'll be avoiding a bunch of crap.

[Lars39]

66. The positive genius of DU is that they designed it

to be done practically any way you want. Everyone does DU differently. I confess that there's very little I won’t read here.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

39. The Trash This Thread button is inside the thread. You have to click the click-bait thread title

You have to click the DU thread title to see the button so you can click it.

Case in point: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217542656

Title: Today's Attacks

What attacks?
The attacks on Ukraine where RuZZia claims to have killed hundreds of soldiers?
The attacks on democracy by Republicans?
Some shooting I haven't heard about yet?

What a fucking bogus title!

Entire contents of the OP:

Today's attacks

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

That's it. What a fucking bogus clickbait OPAQUE OP!

"OP" does not mean posting opaquely.

What is that OP? A vanity post?

By time you get to the opaque OP, there is no point in trashing the thread. You have been meddled with enough to remember the title anyway.

[Lars39]

50. I don't. iPad and desktop both have the box to delete beside the thread,

so I don’t have to even click on the thread to delete it.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

55. Okay. Thanks. . . nt

[Uncle Joe]

62. and then someone might be scarred for life

PTSD kicks in and it becomes a mess.

Don't risk exposure to unknowns, that's the moral of this story.

Stay safe everyone, we're all in this together.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

75. Complete deflection. No damage, just a fucking waste of time. . . . .nt

[Uncle Joe]

85. I know what you mean, by my calculations, it takes a minimum

of 2 and in some cases 3 or 4 seconds to click on thread and know whether you wish to participate or leave it alone and in today's busy world, who has that kind of time?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

86. Multiply that by the hundreds of readers. Are you writing for your self or for DU readers?

Do you care about DU readers?

[Uncle Joe]

89. I post or write for myself, DUreaders and posterity

I care about all the people, even the ones that don't necessarily care about me and so I want maximum exposure.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

101. You'll get more exposure with honest thread titles and transparent content. . . . nt

[Uncle Joe]

110. There was nothing dishonest about the thread title and the content is self-evident. n/t

[Bernardo de La Paz]

87. Is Sanders so reviled on DU you have to click-bait him? No. So there is no point. . . nt

[betsuni]

140. Ironic thing: I would've clicked on it right away if I knew it was a Sanders tweet.

Often amusing. Didn't until a little later when I ran out of other things to click on. Very fun subthread there, quite enjoyed.

[Arthur_Frain]

144. Are you talking about physically clicking on the link?

Because if you just hit the ‘x in the box’ at the end of the link, no the link does not open. It asks if you’re sure you want to trash this thread, and if you click yes you never get sent to the thread.

I’m not trying to be a jerk to the OP, (or to anyone but tfg supporters for that matter), but I do see quite a few posts objecting to content of other folks posts.

My point was it’s worth a few clicks to eliminate triggers on a public comment board.

[Skittles]

128. THANK YOU

she is complaining about MY post, as if I, Skittles, am known for RICK ROLLING

UGH

[Arthur_Frain]

145. Well I don't know the particular post that might have prompted the OP.

But I do see a lot of what they are referring to, posts with titles like “WTF?” or “THIS…”.

Haven’t clicked on any myself that I felt were downright misleading, but maybe that happens more in the lounge or threads. I rarely go there.

[chriscan64]

26. I agree, titles should relate to content.

My peeve is when there is little or no content, like when the entirety of the post is the icon of the guy rolling on the floor laughing.

[womanofthehills]

82. I really hate posts with that rolling icon - just a big turn off personally esp. when directed in

a mean way to another poster which it often is.

Also, can people cut down on their cute nicknames for people you are talking about - we don't always know who you mean. It gets boring too.

[MagickMuffin]

29. And might I add several posters posting an OP with the same article

Why clutter up the thread with the same articles. My only guess is it’s an ego thing a “look at me” only I have this incredible news story!


Annoying as hell and I usually will look at when the multitudes of the same article, I will look at the time stamp read and will K&R them and trash the others.

[PurgedVoter]

35. I want to know if there are TFG pictures in a thread before I see it.

Rick Rolling I can handle

[cilla4progress]

40. I endeavor to include links

when I cite to a fact or news story, including sometimes background or history.

I do that so that readers themselves don't have to research to verify it.

That said, I'm sure I've committed every annoyance mentioned here, despite being mindful to post OPs of value, if not all my replies. For example, I reposted Steve Schmidt's worthwhile column about Hakeem Jeffries yesterday when my initial post of it wasn't readable /accessible. Not as an ego exercise, but because I wanted to share it here with my DU community and I thought you all would appreciate it!

In general, I find I'm able to simply scroll on or ignore posts that don't serve me or my interest.

Sometimes these protestations do have a chilling effect, which is unfortunate. I do try to use them to consider whether I can improve my hygiene here!

[LiberalFighter]

41. I generally don't open those.

[TigressDem]

47. IF THIS is the worst thing on DU, DU is doing pretty good.

Consider the TwitterVerse in comparison.

Some of them I like.....

The subject says one thing and then leads to a self referencing joke about the title.


When I read a post and I think it's good, I like it.

If it's click bate, I just go out. It messes up that person's metrics a little.

So we have SOME control by LIKING and KR the ones that do it as a good DU should.


MAYBE we should develop a new Subject Response Line - WAMI
As in Would Appreciate More Info
Marking the post as LACKING in essential content.


Yeah. OK. Could you WAMI some of these that are bugging you so I can see what is the issue?

[MissMillie]

49. Believe it or not

I actually spent some time this morning creating a hidden "Rick Roll" link to post in any thread that lures me in w/o any content explanation.

But then I talked myself out of doing that.

If I think someone's post is rude/inconsiderate, that doesn't give me license to be rude/inconsiderate.

[TigressDem]

67. Not really as a "moderation" but request for more info. WAMI instead of KR

And explain that WAMI is short for
Would
Appreciate
More
Info

That way if someone is not understanding how MUCH we all appreciate being able to go in and see a well done post, or doesn't quite get what that means in the moment, you'd be helping them to develop the chops.

I whined a lot about the whole linking to tweets (that I couldn't view) for a time or putting them in their own forum so that we would know it was a tweet and (I wasn't on Twitter at the time) so people started putting in the actual info so non-twits could see it too.

Very nice of them, but if no one had said anything about wanting better, the improvement wouldn't have happened. It wasn't just me either. Once I spoke up a lot of others did too.

In polite society we can sometimes be too polite... (or just afraid of ruffling feathers by being the first to make a move).

An example I heard one time was, put a plate of donuts at the front of the room, "Here you go, folks, donuts." Then just wait. NO ONE really wants to be the first piggy down to the plate, but once one person goes, it's OK.

Be that brave soul.

[Ms. Toad]

106. It generally goes right over their heads -

and even if it generates more information, it doesn't alter the behavior in the next post.

I've been trying.

[TeamProg]

48. This!

Actually, I'm with you all the way.

I really announcements with no link or qualifier.

Just LAZY !!

[Ponietz]

63. FTW!

[TigressDem]

69. WAMI

Would
Appreciate
More
Info

What did you win and why does it matter?

[grantcart]

78. That

[Mr. Evil]

51. I understand the frustrations of most of the comments here.

But, as the internet has evolved, so has DU. Everyone has their pet peeves about how something should be posted. Or, how many postings of the same article seem to appear sometimes. I guess mine is when under 'Trending Now' 4 of the 5 articles listed are of the same news item.

I really don't get upset about clicking on something that isn't what I thought it would (or should) be. I simply click the 'home' button and try something else. Since I don't do Twitter I actually appreciate those that post something pertinent or funny about the fucknuttery going on in our government. You know, sort of like, "I do Twitter so you don't have to."

Anyway, everyone that posts a news article or some personal musings may sometimes do so in a manner that might not sit well with someone else's sensibilities. Most likely it's unintentional and in my opinion, not something to get in a twist over. We're all a mixed bag. We cannot, nor should we try to, please everyone about everything every single day. Some things you just have to let slide and move on. We have much bigger fish to fry and worry about.

One other thing, people here that use "prolly" and "Cray Cray" instead of "probably" and "crazy" must stop! DU, please make it stop! AAAAAAAAUUUUUURRRRRRGGGGGGHHHH!!! I can't take it anymore! AAAHHHHHHHHH!!!

[orleans]

52. your party list is creative and amusing. i laughed out loud over "gynecological exam" nt

[MissMillie]

71. aw... shucks. Thanks. (n/t)

.

[IronLionZion]

72. You don't like titles like "This:" and "So much this" and "Tweet of the hour"?

a lot of is political cartoons or memes.

[Joe Cool]

73. TLDR

I am tired of reading multi paragraph posts that could be written in maybe a handful of sentences and get the same point across.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

74. Sorry, but really not getting where you are coming from on this.

My only suggestion would be that if there are posters whose content consistently annoys you, put them on "ignore." I find that most posts on DU are at least tangentially related to the topic in the title line, and those that aren't I just move on from.

[keithbvadu2]

80. Amway convention/hunting trip with Dick Cheney... tough choice.

Amway convention/hunting trip with Dick Cheney... tough choice.

At least the hunting trip will be over soon.

[OneBro]

83. Frustrating, yes, but best to just skip over them.

This issue of useless titles comes up often, but the problem actually seems to get worse with each complaint. Rather than rain on whatever joy people seem to get from doing it, skipping posts with useless titles is the way to go.

No muss, no fuss, and you'll suddenly find yourself clicking on higher quality content

[NBachers]

84. It's getting worse and worse. Thank you for posting this.

[jaxexpat]

88. It's one of my pet peeves as well. An OP's title should reflect the post's content.....

even if only as a set up for the punchline of some lame joke.

I was told that it was the title given by the author of the posted article and the OP's poster shouldn't be held accountable. I don't buy that. The OP poster could at least provide a disclaimer.

BTW. Is click counting really a thing? Is there money in it?

[Autumn]

90. I see a good headline, click on it and only thing there is a video, or a pod cast and nothing

explaining what's in the video. I'm not going to watch a 6 or 10 minute video only to find out it was just a grabber and that's not quite what was said. Irritating as hell.

[ShazzieB]

91. I sympathize with a lot of your concerns.

Especially the click baitey video titles. From what I've observed, those are mostly (if not all) Meidas Touch videos, and some aren't bad, but their habit of using hyperbolic titles with tons of caps is definitely annoying. I've gotten to where I don't click on many of those, but you do have to click on the posts to find out for sure what they are. Putting those all in the video forum would help a lot, imo.

Leaving that aside, in my experience, the only way to truly control all of the things you mention would be to institute some "official" rules about things like post titles, backed by a fairly aggressive level of moderation. We're not really used to that kind of moderation here at DU, and I'm not sure how well it would go over, or if there would even be enough volunteers with the time, energy, and inclination to do the necessary work.

Without that kind of moderation, I don't see a real solution, unfortunately. Posts like yours help alert people to problem areas, but I don't think anybody here sees every post, and word doesn't always get around. That means we're all going to experience some annoyance from time to time.

Personally, I have pretty much reconciled myself to that and adjusted my expectations accordingly, and I have found that to be helpful (YMMV, of course). In a ideal world, none of us would have to do that, DU obviously is not and never will be an ideal world. DU at its best is amazing, but it is and always will be flawed. To me, that's come to be part of its charm, but I realize that not everyone is going to feel that way.

[Orrex]

93. The LBN mods are terrific about filtering out non-LBN stuff...

I would think that a similar protocol could be implemented for videos like those you describe, along with "Link to Tweet" posts that I mentioned upthread.

Let's restrict these to dedicated groups that can be handily ignored by those who don't want to see them, and let the respective mods lock such posts when they appear in the wrong group or forum.

I see absolutely no downside to this, except for those whose primary goal is to pad their post-count.

[ShazzieB]

115. The downside I can see is that it would be a lot of work that someone would have to do.

There may well be people who'd be glad to do it, but somebody has to recruit them, create guidelines for them, and teach them what to do.

Also, there's the fact that we don't have a dedicated forum for tweets right now, so one would have to be created by the administrators. I think it would a good thing to have, but the administrators may or may not agree. If you feel really strongly about this, I recommend contacting the administrators. You can do that by clicking on "Ask the Administrators" at the bottom of the "Main" group of forums. A box will pop up with a message box that you can use to send the admins a direct message.

[Orrex]

122. Your concern seems valid to me, but they're true of any group

I might Ask the Admins, but it's not as though it keeps me up at night. More like, when someone raises the subject, it occurs to me to chime in.

[Chautauquas]

92. My faves are the ones with a nondescript title like "this"

and then when you take the bait and click on it the only content is a link to twitter.

[Prairie_Seagull]

99. Something written in stone, I think not.

However keep in mind that there are many here that are of a certain age (ahem) and maybe don't see as well as they used to and clicking on something is a commitment. It would be nice if folks took this into account when they post an op.

In addition maybe some have time constraints and bullshit time sucking posts are not a great use of time.

We are the good guys, be nice to our fellow members. Especially us older, hopefully well used democrats.

[LudwigPastorius]

100. DESTROY Rick-Rolling clickbait post titles with this one weird trick!

https://bit.ly/3BlS71b

[IcyPeas]

102. As the great Tony Soprano says....

[GoodRaisin]

104. I generally don't allow myself to get Rick Rolled.

I look at the title and recs. Sometimes if I can’t quite see what to expect inside from the title I might give a high rec post a chance. Otherwise I don’t click and it works pretty well for the most part. I agree with you titles need to show what to expect when you open a thread.

[48656c6c6f20]

108. We're not laughing at you

But he is!

https://vimeo.com/707751336

[LakeArenal]

111. I also dislike posted videos that the subject is mentioned four minutes into the video...

Then it just repeats the three second subject line.

[WarGamer]

112. Here's an example.

"Turn on CNN RFN, this clown is so stupid!!"

[debm55]

114. Are we talking about tweets, and video on the General Discussion Forum or does it also include the

Lounge? I was under the impression that the Lounge was under a different set of guidelines. I enjoy the post of animals, music, etc, in the Lounge. As this thread goes on it seems to me that the Lounge is included in this, or is that just my impression? Thank you.

[MissMillie]

117. I was talking about any post title that doesn't reflect the contents of the post

And sometimes, the contents of the these post is a link without any explanation.

I actually can live with "Tweet of the Day." (I would prefer a subject on that, but at least I know I'm going to see the actual tweet.)


But "This is a great article. You should read it!" (With just a link inside.) OK.... well.... ABOUT WHAT????" Is the subject matter a secret?

[debm55]

119. Thank you, MissMillie. When there is a post I don't find interesting, I just close it. In the

Lounge it seems to be more easy going. As previously mentioned, I enjoy the videos, music, etc.I read the tweet of the day and accept it as the tweet of the day no matter what the tweet is about. I guess I give poster here in GD more leeway in posting something of importance politically,. Any more I am so afraid of what will upset posters. So I very rarely post in GD.

[MissMillie]

126. The post that set me off today didn't give me any indication if it would be interesting or not.

A recommendation to read a story (no info about the story) and a link (and the link didn't provide any information either).

And yeah, I probably over-reacted to one post, except that it's never just one post. It's easily 20-30 posts every day.

When deciding what to click on, it's helpful to have a little information. I don't understand why we can't all give each other that courtesy.

[msfiddlestix]

116. You are NOT ALONE!! Sing it to the heavens! Good on You!

Oh and thank you for the definition of Ric Rolled, I hadn't heard or read that one before.

Gonna steal it!

[FakeNoose]

118. Totally agree - I skip every post that isn't specific about the content in the title

This isn't Tik-Tok or Reddit. None of us have the time to click on EVERYTHING.
We need to choose what we care enough to read about, and skip all the rest.

[Shermann]

121. A proper Rickroll promises a very specific type of content

...then you get bait-and-switched with something completely different.

The torment framed by the OP is more what I would call a "pig in a poke".

[H2O Man]

123. Recommended.

I probably am most guilty of posting titles to my OPs that only mean something to me. Maybe based upon the name of the song I'm listening to, or the type of thing I think is funny, but that my kids tell me isn't funny at all.

[Pinback]

127. Jeff Tiedrich for the win

[Skittles]

129. learn how to use IGNORE

*I* certainly have

[eleny]

132. Thank you, Miss M

I don't open posts where the Subject header is simply the word, "This" or some other hintless bait.

No short hint of the subject? No click to open.

[Kennah]

133. May I interest you in some tulips?

[Kennah]

134. But seriously though

[CoopersDad]

135. AGREE! Here's and example of what kills me: "WTF, did you hear what she just said???!!

and then comments like:

I can't believe it, can you???

[PCIntern]

139. Well, you make a good point...

Truth be told, I’ve usually write my subject line as a provocative half sentence, which I continue in the body of the post. I certainly understand how you would feel that way, and have no argument with your position because number one you are correct in many instances and number two I never thought about that before. I think what has happened is that the Browser loads so quickly, that if you make a mistake and hit a post that you don’t wanna see, you can virtually instantly dismiss it and go back to your original screen, showing the posts for general discussion, for example.

Now I’m in a quandary: I’m going to have to rethink how I want to posit my thesis with a more descriptive subject line. Just what I needed, more work! 😊

[betsuni]

141. I think people get too relaxed, forget everyone isn't in the same time zone or watches the

same things on TV and isn't in the living room with them.

[JohnnyRingo]

142. All I have to say about that is.....

...I agree. LOL

[Danascot]

143. We have an abuse alert button

Maybe we could have an ambiguous title alert. When alerted for title, maybe a message could be generated automatically to OP requesting that the title be revised to be more clear, plus an "ambiguous title" phrase in red could be appended to the confusing title notifying readers that the title is unclear. When OP revises the title, they would be able to delete the red notice phrase.

It's an annoying and too common issue but I think in many cases the OP doesn't realize they're doing it. An ambiguous title alert should help people become aware of confusing titles and reduce the instances it happens.

[Pobeka]

147. This seems like a really good idea. nt

[Croney]

146. We've been talking about this for a few months now, and it's time to do something.

I have no idea what.

The people who post the worst clickbait-title threads don't seem to join in the discussion much.