…the only one that finds it irritating when a thread has a non-descriptive title?

I click to read it, and find it’s of no interest to me.

Then I’ve lost a good few seconds of my life. Seconds that could have been productively spent doing nothing instead.

+1

+2

Yes, that and click bait titles.

+another

Thus is also why I like being able so see who started it. You know some threads will be good value even if the title is a little weird.

EDIT: Guess I may be a bit guilty of this. Looking at my started threads (admittedly there’s not many of them) about 50% are probably leas than clear about what is in them.

Yu r

Justice for eyestwice I say.

Often someone post on the same subject using a good description and the mods then close it with a link to the cryptically described one. Close the cryptic one I say, it’s usually some smart arse trying to show they have superior knowledge on the subject.

I just ignored it.

Cryptic titles are dumb, but my current favourites are now the short ones so you can click straight through to the last page! 🙂

On larger forums it wouldn’t be tolerated since there are already multiple duplicate threads created on a lot of subjects and the mods have to curate it a lot more. Cryptically titled threads either get deleted right off the bat or ( on forums where colourful language prevails) the title is changed by the mods and generally to something describing the op as an attention whore and a time waster.

But if you take away the attention whoring and time wasting, what do you have? 😉

Just arguing and people being wrong.

Sorry, but I like them.

You often find an interesting thread on a topic you wouldn’t normally bother with.

Also interesting to see how people’s minds work.
🙂

I never open those kinds of threads. So you’ll never find me posting on them.

Often someone post on the same subject using a good description and the mods then close it with a link to the cryptically described one. Close the cryptic one I say

Yeah, we – well, “I”, I can’t speak for others – should probably give more weight to that. Problem is though, by the time a thread is duplicated the original might have many comments.

It’s particularly an issue when there’s a breaking news story, like someone’s died or something. Some folk are in such a grip of firstpostitis that they just don’t check whether it’s been done first; you could put “RIP JOE COCKER” in flashing pink neon and you’d probably still get duplicates.

Maybe us renaming them is a better idea. What do other readers think?

On larger forums it wouldn’t be tolerated since there are already multiple duplicate threads created on a lot of subjects and the mods have to curate it a lot more

I don’t know about larger forums but the the thing about deleted threads, almost their defining characteristic if you will, is that they’ve been deleted. If you’re seeing a lot of deleted threads on other forums, what you’re actually seeing there is slower moderators.

We tend to close duplicates rather than delete them, anyway. It’s less admin.

the title is changed by the mods and generally to something describing the op as an attention whore and a time waster.

I quite like that idea. (-:

I quite like that idea. (-:

If you study hard, and do well in you exams, Cougar. Maybe one day you’ll be able to mod a functional forum 8)

Oh, I have a few ideas for what’s going to happen when I’m in charge, don’t you worry. (-:

This type of thread title? Annoying? Why yes, yes it is.

What’s being suggested is a type of censorship I would find very unfortunate. I mean, when we start threads, we have to think of titles for them and that is not always easy.

Sometimes, a person might want to ask a question about tyres that represents a slightly different angle on the oft-asked questions, and that therefore doesn’t warrant a conventional title. If we instituted that all tyre threads had straightforwardly descriptive titles, we would half a forum full of threads entitled ‘tyres’, and the other half divided between ‘what bike for…’, ‘God’, ‘favourite music’, and a few others.

In any case, at the end of the day, is it really irritating to open a thread, see that it’s not of interest to you, and close it again?

Really?

SaxonRider – Member

What’s being suggested is a type of censorship I would find very unfortunate.

The swear filter is a form of censorship. The forum rules about posting porn, or gore or any other kind of inappropriate image is a form of censorship, so too is controlling spam and needless repetition.

Wilful misinterpretation of thread titles for my own amusement is one of my favourite pastimes.
Keep em as cryptic as you like, I say.

Also, Joe Cocker’s dead?

The swear filter is a form of censorship. The forum rules about posting porn, or gore or any other kind of inappropriate image is a form of censorship, so too is controlling spam and needless repetition.

I didn’t say I don’t think any censorship is necessary; I said that what was being proposed was ‘a type of censorship I would find very unfortunate’.

EDIT: beej gets it right on this tread. That’s all any of us need to do.

SaxonRider

I didn’t say I don’t think any censorship is necessary; I said that what was being proposed was ‘a type of censorship I would find very unfortunate’.

So on the one hand you would find it “very unfortunate” if people used less cryptic, or more informative thread titles but struggle to believe anyone would be really irritated by having to open and thread and read it before realising it was guff.

🙄