DU Admin pet-peeve: Lame, non-descriptive thread titles

[Skinner]

I know that this is a little off-topic for the GD:2004 forum, but right now this is where we're getting the most posts, so I'm posting this in here.

Before you start a new thread, please take a moment to think of a thread title that is relevant to the topic of the thread.

This happens all the time. But it's particularly frustrating when a very interesting--perhaps totally new--piece of news gets ignored because the thread title doesn't give any indication of what juicy nugget of information sits inside.

I know that it is much easier to write "Look at this" or "Has this been posted yet?" or "OMFG!!!! WTF????" instead of thinking of something relevant. But please, make the effort.

I'm asking this as a favor to all the members of the message board, who have to wade through thousands of new threads every day. I'm not going to create any new rules, or send you nasty private messages, or delete your posts. I'm just making a polite request so hopefully folks will make more of an effort.

Thank you for your understanding. :thumbsup:

Skinner
DU Admin

Oh, and while we're on the topic of thread titles, you might want to make an effort to limit yourself to one question mark or exclamation point. Just another pet peeve of mine. Sorry...

[Walt Starr]

1. THANK YOU SKINNER!!!!!

That's probably this DUers biggest pet peeve too!

[Warpy]

12. No, my pet peeve is a SCREAMER!!!!! subject line

and no damn information in the post. You know, "CNN JUST SHOWED BUSH DOING SOMETHING REALLY STUPID!!!!!!!!" with no body to the post.

I'm venting. Thank you for listening. Please take it to heart.

[calico1]

18. I hate those too.

"RANDI'S ON FIRE!"

"QUICK! TURN ON CNN!"

And those of us who are at work have no clue what is going on and can't find out.

Also hate "teaser" titles, which I think in many cases, not only here but on every message board I have ever been on is intended to try and MAKE people open the thread just so they can find out what its about, i.e., "OMFG!" as the title and so on....

[Walt Starr]

23. sorry

i didn't mean to scream...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. Locking.... sex thread.

[Renew Deal]

10. lol

Thanks Skinner. I was annoyed about the original posting of the GOP vote challenge in Ohio. It was like OMFG GOP cheating. What's new?

[maine_raptor]

3. Hey Skinner, Has this been posted yet?

Just Kidding....I hear ya.

Makes sense too! (please note the ONE and ONLY exclamation point)

[RafterMan]

4. Kerry Tanking!

Also, hold off on the gotcha thread titles, please.

Everyone's a little on edge, and I certainly don't need that momentary panic before I figure out it's a joke. Just for the next week, anyway.

[PDittie]

5. OMFG!!! Have you seen this???? WTF!?!?!? eom

[DrBB]

6. I like 'em even better when there's no message

Just love that. Thread title making abbreviated reference to some topic I know nothing about yet, and then there's absolutely nothing--or at best, just one cryptic line--in the post itself. Happens all the time recently. Burns my toast.

'Member the experimental rule that said you had to have three sentences to start a thread? I kinda liked that one.

[Anaxamander]

7. I think all forums should have this rule

There's nothing worse than seeing this as a list of threads:

- Just had a thought...
- CHECK THIS OUT!!!
- I have a question
- Hmmmmm...
- Has anyone heard of this?
- Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!1!1

Although it's not nearly as bad on DU as some other sites I go to.

[Skinner]

13. The obligatory "1" in the list of exclamation points.

A personal favorite of mine. :thumbsup:

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

63. Whoops. I've done that one before. Typo. No1's perfect (wink).

[terrya]

8. I apologize in advance if I've done this.

It's a good rule of thumb. I'll be careful about this in the future.

Thank you,
Terry

[blondeatlast]

9. So right, I often edit my own titles because they didn't relate to

the content well.

I'm sure most everyone knows by now, but for those who don't:

YOU CAN NOW EDIT YOUR SUBJECT LINES.

It may not seem like much, but it's like adding Grandma's brooch to your second-hand Chanel jacket. Just makes the best a bit better.

Is DU damn near perfect, or what?!

[Skinner]

11. LOL

People have been able to edit subject lines since July of 2003. Do you think there are some people who never got the memo? Probably so, now that I think about it.

[blondeatlast]

16. Um, I only discovered it about (hangs head in shame) about

6 months ago, when I posted something I regretted almost immediately and was desperately trying to do just that!

[nostamj]

14. dupe!

I posted this weeks ago! ;-)

double annoyance:

Subj line: CHECK THIS OUT!!!! or Have you SEEN this???

Message: only a link. not even a CLUE about what the article is about.

if you're too lazy to copy/paste a snip of the article. or at least say 'it's about ____' then....

please, don't post at all.

[Longhorn]

22. I especially hate when the link is disguised with a different name

such as "link" and nothing of the article or the source has been posted. Frankly, I'm not going to follow a link if I don't know where it's going to take me!

[jarab]

15. These cryptic titles are intended to dramatize .....

but I really think - in most cases - they're used in lieu of an appropriate one because the text just isn't worth reading. Therefore, I don't click posts with vague titles such as OMG and WTF.
These are in many cases simple "nuisances" (to reiterate JK).
...O...

[OneBlueSky]

19. if that's the intent, it's not working . . .

I, for one, usually just skip past these kinds of posts . . . there's so much information on DU that I don't have the time or the interest to play guessing games . . . if a post's lead doesn't communicate what it's about, I just don't read it . . . I figure if it's something important, at least a dozen other posts about the same topic will eventually appear . . .

[russian33]

17. Skinner!

Why is the lunch lady working as a nurse?

[DeepModem Mom]

20. Agreed, Skinner -- thanks!

[wildflower]

21. Sorry, Skinner; I think I am guilty of extra punctuation...

...especially periods. And maybe question marks??? I'd have to look, but I believe so.

LOL, I love the 1's too.

-wildflower

[Blue_Roses]

24. I totally agree however

it's the OMG posts that seem to get the most hits. I have often wondered why so many good threads fall to the pile in the archives when they have good "headliners." So, I tried the "OMG" test myself and lo and behold--bingo. Go figure:shrug:

[Q]

25. Don't forget the infamous...

....'this is a stupid question, but'...threads.

[seabeyond]

26. you are so cool skinner

have i said thank you of late. will think before typing. not going to do capitals though.

[Jersey Devil]

27. Sexy pics inside

Yeah, too much damned clicking for disappointments.

[Zomby Woof]

28. A worshipful thank you

And to add to that, I also find it extremely annoying when the subject line, even if relevant, cuts off in mid-sentence.

Subject: "Jon Stewart just said on TDS that Cheney makes wild monkey"

Text: "Soup!"


EDIT those subject lines into a complete thought.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

29. MY FAVORITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"I'm suicidal about the new Bumfreak Poll, please cheer me up!"

[hlthe2b]

30. Can I PLEASE add, posting only a link with no short clip or comment!

It is even worse, when it ends up being either a large pdf file link (which then "locks up my computer"), a direct large video/audio link, or to a source that requires registration. Damn, this pisses me off!

[chimpymustgo]

31. Second that. If something is worth posting, give us a couple of

paragraphs.

Thanks Skinner - you really hit a nerve.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

47. If it's worth posting, don't run text from the subect into the article.

Please learn headline writing skills.

One could have written:

"Second that. If its worth posting, give us a paragraph or two (nt)"

[Bernardo de La Paz]

48. Third that. If its worth posting, give us a paragraph or two (nt)

[slackmaster]

32. IMO the worst of all is the single period (.) title

Not only non-descriptive, they're damned hard to click!

:argh:

[crispini]

43. Those are usually kicks... when inside a thread.

Never seen 'em used to START a thread. :kick:

[Doohickie]

33. Huh.... I would have never guessed

...what this thread was about by its title....!

[nonconformist]

34. Man, I've been saving an "OMG?!?!1 WTF?!?!1? LOL!!1!!!" for the right time

Foiled again. :)

[tnlefty]

35. WTF? Won't you please reconsider and send me a nasty PM?

I'm asking politely, :evilgrin:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

36. TURN ON YOUR TV NOW!

That one gets me everytime :)

[OKNancy]

37. especially in Latest Breaking

News.

[meisje]

38. Did You See That!!!

I mean WOW, he really told that whore off!!!

[psychopomp]

39. Good idea

Thread titles should give one an idea what the topic concerns.

Of course, the Lounge is another creature altogether!

[troublemaker]

40. link?

(joking)

[newyawker99]

41. kick

:kick:

[nomatrix]

42. Thanks, I needed that reminder

May I add to the list of requests?

Please post with your link, registration required to NY Times, LA Times, etc.

If it is satire, please let people in on it.
Web traffic and raw nerves will be on the increase over the days to come.

[henslee]

44. Once saw a guide for posting. It was at the old TAP forum. Informative,

tight subject lines. Link whenever possible to support facts. There were other pointers too.

[smirkymonkey]

45. Kick

:kick:

[Bernardo de La Paz]

46. Absolutely. Write headlines, don't run text into the article.

Absolutely. Write headlines, don't run the text from the subject line into the article.

Learn headline writing skills. It is easy. Use all the space in the subject line for writing a headline. For example, suppose you want to say something like:

"Get Out the Vote"

Be more specific and informative by writing something like:

"Kerry Get Out the Vote effort needs drivers and phoners to go into hyperdrive now that the polls are open"

It would be truncated to:

"Kerry Get Out the Vote effort needs drivers and phoners to go into hyperdr"

So use appropriate abbreviations, drop articles ("a", "the"), skip some verbs. Write something like:

"Kerry GOtV effort needs drivers, phoners in hyperdrive, polls open"

Another thing that helps comprehension is to not run text from the subject line into the article. The Subject line is a headline. Use it as such, not as the first line of the article. For more thoughtful pieces, repeat the headline as the first line of the article, expanded back into proper English.

Please don't put URLs in the subject line, which leads me to the next topic: Also avoid extra long subject lines with no spaces, wide sigs.

I have lots of resolution for my monitor, but I like to browse at half-screen width, because paragraphs are nicely formatted for easy readability (appr. 65 characters per line), instead of being ultra wide. The main forum page and General Discussion / C2004 forum page formats nicely, except when somebody thinks it is cute to use an extra long subject line, which causes the LBN on the right to not be visible, or the number of replies to be not visible in the GD/C2004. This is also frustrating when people use ultrawide signature images (big ones are a bother too and just an ego boost for the poster).

[wellstone_democrat]

49. Thank YOU and another thing

a semi-descriptive title with NO information:

"Lou Dobbs is on fire!"

and then NO TEXT or "are you watching?" as the entire message.

That and those who are commenting on an active situation who don't want to post on someone else's thread in progress so they START a thread with a comment that comes from reading another thread---pure vanity.

Drives me f'ing nuts.

[Beaverhausen]

55. Yes- that gets me too.

Although for the 2 times I was near a TV and on the computer it has been helpful to read "Kerry on C-Span" now but most of the time I can't watch.

[unfrigginreal]

50. DU poster pet-peeve: Locking threads with a more beneficial headline

Not really a pet-peave but more of a request for the last week of this campaign. When papers like the NY Times run a headline that's sure to dampen the fundies excitement about voting, such as 'Bush Says His Party Is Wrong to Oppose Gay Civil Unions', can we leave it open in LBN even if it's a dupe of a story with a less useful headline?

[footinmouth]

51. It would be great to leave the profanity out of the subject titles

Not that I mind profanity, but I try to sneak on during the day from work and sometimes the page doesn't make it through the porn filters. Between this site and "Television Without Pity" I'm quickly becoming the porn surfer of the year at my office. I so don't want to get busted.

[Weembo]

52. Good advice when taken with a little common sense

This is good advice, especially for those of us who are relatively new. At the same time, let's try to be productive and supportive of posters as opposed to playing "appropriate title police" and jumping their case when you don't like their heading.

[CityHall]

53. OMFG, LOL!!!1!!

Amazed you resisted the temptation to title this, "YOU ALL HAVE TO READ THIS RIGHT NOW!!!!"

[Logansquare]

54. And, if you've had three topics already locked in LBN

because someone else got to them first, please give up. I can't believe how many little padlocks there are in LBN, most of them posted by the same three or four people!

[Moderator]

56. kick

:kick:

[fishnfla]

57. i vote less threads, more discussion

Is this a discussion forum or not?

watch how this question goes unanswered within a thread, 'cuz this happens to me all the time. although the question is usually germaine to the topic at hand, or seeking more information, it never, ever receives a response, even by the original poster.

people are deluded if they think threads are read for discussion purposes. this is a "shout-out" forum only.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

58. "Wow! Did anybody else hear this rumor?"

[bloom]

59. kick

:kick:

[RedEarth]

60. I

agree.....:)

[Beaverhausen]

61. SKINNER! PIN THIS THREAD

please?

[Cha]

62. Thanks for suggesting this Skinner.

It will save a lot of needless questions if the original poster gives a full explanation of what they are talking about.

Not everyone has cable but they are interested in what the poster has to say about..say..tweety!

[Bossy Monkey]

64. kicking, as there's a new crop at the top of the page n/t

[AnIndependentTexan]

65. I'm still pretty much new here, but I think is because of last days

I think we are all pretty hype up. So much new information is coming out and we just feel the need to get it out. If I make the mistake please forgive me. I know for me I feel like a kid in a candy store or a computer person in a computer store that has everything I ever wanted for my computer at the right price!

[karlrschneider]

66. YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, shit, sorry, I just bought some shares in an exclamation point manufacturing company!!!!!!!

:evilgrin:

It's one of my major peeves too. :D
I promise to never start a thread with a subject like the one in this reply. ;-)

edit: damn keyboard hass a sticky sss key. ssee?

[DemBones DemBones]

67. It was great when we had a rule against such thread titles.

Couldn't you reinstate that rule without all the others?

I seem to remember the mods locked such threads, or deleted them.

[Junkdrawer]

68. Please help me debunk this email from my Republican uncle...

:evilgrin:

[psychopomp]

69. kick

[bloom]

70. kick

:kick:

[are_we_united_yet]

71. OMG!! WTF?!! Awsome. ABCDEFG? HIJK!

Sorry I couldn't resist (I know, I know , I'm a smart ass)

But I agree and great advice.

[Bossy Monkey]

72. What he said n/t

[RedEarth]

73. kick

[Beaverhausen]

74. kick

come on people!!!