PDA

View Full Version : Pet Peeve on naming threads!



Candy
2005-Jan-23, 10:51 PM
Pet Peeve: when you decide to name a thread, could you at least put something in the title pertaining to the context?

You can still be clever with the title's verbiage.

This way, I, a person that works full-time and goes to school full-time, don't have to constantly get ToSeeked. I would love to spend all day searching a subject before I post, but that just isn't a reality.


8-[

Nicolas
2005-Jan-23, 11:04 PM
For the little number of threads I started, I thought a (relatively) long time about the titles (in order to find something funny, which didn't work, so I just typed a very informative one :)). But even without becoming Mr Pun 2005, making a clear and inviting title ain't that hard.

On another forum where there ain't much traffic and I am some sort of unofficial moderator because of being the most active member (there are no active moderators left because there is so little traffic), there are about 4 new threads every week (average thread is something like 6 posts long).
About half of those threads are titled

"I have 2 questions"
"Help! Newbie"
"I need help on this one"
"Can someone please explain me how to..." (continues in thread)
:roll: [-X [-( [-X :roll:

I thought that making an informative title was a basic rule going beyond the world of internet forums.

I know you didn't necessarily mean titles THAT unclear, but something that minimizes the Toseeked experience in threads would be nice. Not only for becoming toSeeked, but to find our way through the posts. I don't think there is a major title problem at the BABB however, but it is something that we all should keep in mind.

I think that I'll start a thread called "what I wanted to say", "important" or "read this" in which I will put some guidelines :D

Maddad
2005-Jan-23, 11:18 PM
I am active on some other forums; just arrived here the other day. Uninformative post titles are a peve of mine as well, but there one other item that goes along with them. You open the thread and find a link. Nothing more. Guys, there's a billion web pages out there. I don't have time to read them all, or even click them to read their title. If you're posting a link because you think that the page is great, then tell us why you think so.

Maksutov
2005-Jan-23, 11:21 PM
I am active on some other forums; just arrived here the other day. Uninformative post titles are a peve of mine as well, but there one other item that goes along with them. You open the thread and find a link. Nothing more. Guys, there's a billion web pages out there. I don't have time to read them all, or even click them to read their title. If you're posting a link because you think that the page is great, then tell us why you think so.
The link thing is prohibited by The Rules as detailed in the FAQs. (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/faq.php#0)

Welcome to the BABB, Maddad! Enjoy yourself.


[edit/capitalization, add welcome]

Candy
2005-Jan-23, 11:21 PM
I am active on some other forums; just arrived here the other day. Uninformative post titles are a peve of mine as well, but there one other item that goes along with them. You open the thread and find a link. Nothing more. Guys, there's a billion web pages out there. I don't have time to read them all, or even click them to read their title. If you're posting a link because you think that the page is great, then tell us why you think so.
Good one! =D>

I've only been guilty once or twice of this.

Candy
2005-Jan-23, 11:23 PM
I am active on some other forums; just arrived here the other day. Uninformative post titles are a peve of mine as well, but there one other item that goes along with them. You open the thread and find a link. Nothing more. Guys, there's a billion web pages out there. I don't have time to read them all, or even click them to read their title. If you're posting a link because you think that the page is great, then tell us why you think so.
The link thing is prohibited by The Rules as detailed in the FAQs. (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/faq.php#0)
Along with the link, one could at least include a paragraph or two to get you hooked. According to my LAWS class, this is okay to do.

[edit to add - there really are no internet laws, once a person publishes their work online - you can say don't do this or that - but there are really no laws THAT I CAN FIND to actually get their permission] :o

Nicolas
2005-Jan-23, 11:26 PM
[Edit: seems like 3 posts slipped between Maddad's post and my answer]
Maddad, I know that it occurs, but posting only a link is in principle against the rules.

I say "in principle" because ToSeek (to name one) does it sometimes, but he gives it a clear title, and a link caption. Also he is selective in which links he posts. And we know that he won't troll, He'll answer if asked something.

I have no problem with threads like this:

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=11127
It is clear what there is to be found, and ToSeek is known for giving qualitatively links. Also, without putting any text, you know that you'll go to a link with nice images made by mars express about that particular feature on mars. That is a short and effective way to post things. ALso, if toSeek feels he needs some comments on his opening post, he'll put them there.

A completely different story is:
Someone makes a thread "What do you think about this?" with only a link consisting of many symbols we don't have sounds for, linking to a black-no-red 7 pages website containing a woo-woo story. You are "forced" to read a long story without knowing what it is about, nor what the poster thinks about it.

Candy
2005-Jan-23, 11:41 PM
Nicolas, I think what maddad and myself would like to see are...

Tenn. Senator Says He Keeps Two Families (http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=050123&cat=strange&st=stranged87q2r6 o0&src=ap) with the title of the thread being Tenn. Senator Says He Keeps Two Families.

State Sen. John Ford testified in a juvenile court hearing that he keeps two homes, living with two different women whose children he fathered.

The thread includes the title and a tease to what the story is about. Now, one could call the title, Tennesee Two Step, and we all would know what the story is sort of about. But when you call the same story, Midwest is in trouble, well you get my point. I hope. 8-[

Nicolas
2005-Jan-24, 12:10 AM
[EDITED TO SPOIL: :D ]
There is truth in that last post of yours Candy. While the example I gave (I mean the Mars express pictures) is a clear thread on itself, it does have a chance of double threads.
However, having multiple publications of essentially the same article with different titles (or the same pic in the example) can lead to threads "Marines panorama" "Nice mars Express Images" and "Looking down on mars" if different space sites happen to use those titles respectively.

So I guess it is in the first place important to make as clear as possible what the thread is about exactly, whether it be a title or a description that includes the fact that you link to an article. That way, when posting a new thread, looking at the other thread titles should be enough to distinguish probable earlier posts on the subject. Often, the title of an article is clear, but if it's not, you could do something like

"Article: Ground telescopes have picked up lost Huygens data"
If the article happened to be titled "listening to Huygens"
giving the URL the unclear article title makes it clear from post 1 which article it is, while the thread title makes the subject clear (hence makes the forum clear, and is a good pinpointer for other thread starters as a "suspicious thread" concerning having the same contents).

These are just thoughts, I think the situation makes clear which solution is best. If we all just use our heads when choosing a title, many problems will be solved.

Any further tips and comments are welcome, I think this is very constructive for the BABB in general.

Candy
2005-Jan-24, 12:14 AM
You're right Candy.
You know, I will hold this statement against you for the rest of your life. :D

Nicolas
2005-Jan-24, 12:23 AM
You know, I will hold this statement against you for the rest of your life.

Females... :D :D

Candy
2005-Jan-24, 12:28 AM
You know, I will hold this statement against you for the rest of your life.

Females... :D :D
To late, I have you recorded before you spoiled. :wink:

Nicolas
2005-Jan-24, 12:37 AM
Candy never said what is "quoted" here

In case you use it against me, I'll just say you needed an ego boost and faked that quote :D

Denial and lies, the mistaker's best friends!

Now why don't we act like grown ups (...), shake hands and be friends again. Theeeeeeeeere you go. :lol:

Candy
2005-Jan-24, 12:40 AM
I love Candy so much, my eyeballs are wanting to burst from my head.
Oh, two can play at that game. :D

Nicolas
2005-Jan-24, 12:48 AM
:o

You know my special one will kill me if she reads that :)

[Disclaimer to S.O.: Candy was in a state of ecstasy -due to someone telling her she was right while he didn't mean to put things THAT strong- when she wrote this faked quote, but she was pushing her luck] 8-[ 8-[

Candy
2005-Jan-24, 09:23 AM
Back to the OP... 8-[

When you post and then delete it, you make everyone have to hit the watch of replies again? :evil:

Nicolas
2005-Jan-24, 10:45 AM
Back to the OP... 8-[

When you post and then delete it, you make everyone have to hit the watch of replies again? :evil:

Can you explain? First, I don't know how to completely delete a post of mine. Second, do you mean that deleting your post puts the "unraid post" light on for that thread?

Candy
2005-Jan-24, 11:14 AM
Back to the OP... 8-[

When you post and then delete it, you make everyone have to hit the watch of replies again? :evil:

Can you explain? First, I don't know how to completely delete a post of mine. Second, do you mean that deleting your post puts the "unraid post" light on for that thread?
After I post something, I have the option to edit, quote, or X (delete). You should, too.

If someone hits the X (delete), then anyone following the thread now gets 'bumped'. Meaning they no longer will get emails with additional updates, etc...

For example, when someone deletes a post, I get the initial email. If I click on the link to the post, it displays something like 'this post no longer is available'.

I then have to either pull up the previous email to find a link, or I have to search the website for the original thread.

After doing the above, I then have to either post new or click down at the botton 'start watching this topic'.

Does this make sense? 8-[

Nicolas
2005-Jan-24, 11:22 AM
OK I checked every pixel of my screen, but nowhere do I have something that can delete my posts.

The right bottom of the screen claims:

"You can delete your posts in this forum". However, on my posts I only have a "quote" and "edit" button. When I hit the "edit" button, the following screen still has no button for deleting a post.

Also, I see no option to "start watching this topic".

Does anyone know how this comes?
(I'm quite sure the options really aren't availble to me at the moment, I really thoroughly checked my screen top to bottom).

Nicolas
2005-Jan-24, 11:25 AM
OK 1 mystery solved: I see now that I only can delete my post if that happens to be the LAST post in the thread

And THERE is that "wathc this topic for replies"!!!
My bad, I looked over it :oops: I never used that function before, I just skim the whole board :). I thought that was some "refresh" funtion...

At least I learned some extra functions and what not to do with them. I'll kepp it in mind.

Candy
2005-Jan-24, 11:33 AM
Nicolas, are you now saying that I just taught you something new? :wink:

Nicolas
2005-Jan-24, 11:45 AM
Nicolas, are you now saying that I just taught you something new? :wink:

Yes Candy, I am now saying that you just taught me something new. :lol: If I want to delete a post, I just edit it to [never mind], maybe including a reason however. As it turns out now, that seems to be the better option?

Now if you could also explain in a quantitive way (your strong point :)) including formulas why steering column strings give a backwards shift of the neutral point (stick free) in an aircraft, I would start a "good words about Candy" thread :D

Tranquility
2005-Jan-24, 03:17 PM
lol I stumbled on this thread, read through it, completely forgot what it was about. It made me dizzy :lol:

Nicolas
2005-Jan-24, 03:19 PM
This thread has some higly informative posts, obscured by some chatting around :oops:

Bottom line:

*Don't delete posts
*Give threads CLEAR titles

Fram
2005-Jan-24, 03:25 PM
And don't hijack threads, or even the clearest title gets irrelevant :D

Nicolas
2005-Jan-24, 03:29 PM
Now Fram, PLEASE don't try to turn the topic into "hijacking"! [-X :D

A Thousand Pardons
2005-Jan-24, 03:30 PM
I am active on some other forums; just arrived here the other day. Uninformative post titles are a peve of mine as well, but there one other item that goes along with them. You open the thread and find a link. Nothing more. Guys, there's a billion web pages out there. I don't have time to read them all, or even click them to read their title. If you're posting a link because you think that the page is great, then tell us why you think so.
The link thing is prohibited by The Rules as detailed in the FAQs. (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/faq.php#0)
Not yet, I don't think. Are you referring to ground rule #8? That only mentions linking to a pseudoscience site and never responding to the thread again.

[Edit: seems like 3 posts slipped between Maddad's post and my answer]
Maddad, I know that it occurs, but posting only a link is in principle against the rules.

I say "in principle" because ToSeek (to name one) does it sometimes, but he gives it a clear title, and a link caption. Also he is selective in which links he posts. And we know that he won't troll, He'll answer if asked something.
More or less why it is not against the rules.

Maksutov
2005-Jan-25, 04:11 AM
I am active on some other forums; just arrived here the other day. Uninformative post titles are a peve of mine as well, but there one other item that goes along with them. You open the thread and find a link. Nothing more. Guys, there's a billion web pages out there. I don't have time to read them all, or even click them to read their title. If you're posting a link because you think that the page is great, then tell us why you think so.
The link thing is prohibited by The Rules as detailed in the FAQs. (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/faq.php#0)
Not yet, I don't think. Are you referring to ground rule #8? That only mentions linking to a pseudoscience site and never responding to the thread again.
You're forgetting the way the FAQs have been interpreted by the BA. There have been a number of posts where this kind of thing has been expressly declared "out of bounds".

A Thousand Pardons
2005-Jan-25, 05:28 AM
I am active on some other forums; just arrived here the other day. Uninformative post titles are a peve of mine as well, but there one other item that goes along with them. You open the thread and find a link. Nothing more. Guys, there's a billion web pages out there. I don't have time to read them all, or even click them to read their title. If you're posting a link because you think that the page is great, then tell us why you think so.
The link thing is prohibited by The Rules as detailed in the FAQs. (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/faq.php#0)
Not yet, I don't think. Are you referring to ground rule #8? That only mentions linking to a pseudoscience site and never responding to the thread again.
You're forgetting the way the FAQs have been interpreted by the BA. There have been a number of posts where this kind of thing has been expressly declared "out of bounds".
But it's not prohibited by the FAQ Rules--and the way I remember it, the BA qualified it pretty much the same way, in that it was more or less OK if you rejoined the thread. Not that I like it any more than anybody else.