BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Policy & Help >

Please title threads clearly!

  
 
Matthew Fluxington
16:44 / 13.05.02
I already mentioned this in this thread, but I think it's worth bringing up here in Policy - could people PLEASE start titling threads more obviously, especially in the Spectacle forums?

It's very confusing for people to scan through the site looking for topics of interest when people are titling threads in very obscure ways. thread I linked to is a good example - there's no hint of the topic in the title, and barely any in the post even! The thread is about El-Producto, but a person just casually looking at the site or in the archive would never know this, and might end up being cheated of talking/reading about a topic that interests them.

Don't be careless! Please be as specific as you can!

Also: Tom and Cal, is there any way for moderators to edit thread titles? It seems like there currently is no option to do this.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
16:58 / 13.05.02
I would think that a more obscure title would be better.

Wouldn't it be more likely to draw in a poster who may otherwise be unlikely to get involved? Unless you think it would be a detriment to discussion to have input from someone without a standing interest.
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
17:20 / 13.05.02
Hmmm.

Would you apply that methodology to a bookstore, sbp?
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
17:30 / 13.05.02
No, but when a similarity between this place and a bookstore, you'll be the first I tell.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
17:35 / 13.05.02
Potus, yr argument assumes that everyone who reads this board has a lot of free time to open up and look at every thread. There should be no reason why a person can't just look at thread title and know what that thread is about. I would wager any sum of money that the majority of people who would see a thread with no information in the title would be less likely to read it.

If a poster is unlikely to be involved in a discussion, then so be it. Not everyone has to be involved in everything, and sometimes it's better for discussions to lack those who aren't informed about the subject matter.

We should remember that we are inviting a number of people to the board lately, many people who are very busy. I think that it is the interest of the board to have the board be as clear and user-friendly as we can make it.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
17:48 / 13.05.02
My argument assumes nothing of the kind.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
17:50 / 13.05.02
Oh really? Then why else would someone be randomly casting about, opening threads, unless they had some time on their hands?
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
17:54 / 13.05.02
My argument assumed that I'm bored at work and feel like playing devils advocate on a Monday afternoon.

As for your question, I can't possibly presume to know the reasons behind someones actions, I'll leave that to you.
 
 
bio k9
18:28 / 13.05.02
Prick.

I opened that thread to see what it was about and couldn't tell even after reading the first post. If SFD (who couldn't tell either) hadn't checked Amazon I still might not know. As I have no interest in E-LP it was a waste of my time and, unlike yourself, I have other things I can be doing.
 
 
sleazenation
18:57 / 13.05.02
... and while not wishing to unnecessarily pull apart anyones post, defending an argument, even one you adopt as a devils advocate si so much easier when you actually form meaningful sentences...

No, but when a similarity between this place and a bookstore, you'll be the first I tell.

What exactly is the above supposed to mean?
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
19:02 / 13.05.02
Sorry, that was supposed to read "when I find a similarity between this place and a bookstore".

Sadly my brain and my hands are working independently of each other today.
 
 
Mystery Gypt
19:31 / 13.05.02
it's true that sometimes people like to use colorful thread titles to attract attention. if that thread had been titled "El-P" (is that the artist's name, btw? i still don't get it even after reading the thread) i wouldn't have cracked it open either. but, speaking to potus' criticism and the intention behind many titles, if it had been called "Fucking incredible new album by beard-hop pioneer" or something similar, i would have looked at it.

so we're not saying you gotta title it with a dewey decimal number, but relevance is an important trait on the internet.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
19:43 / 13.05.02
Right on, Mystery Gypt - I don't mean that all creativity in titling should be abandoned, but that the subject matter should be obvious by the title of a thread. Even titling the thread after the name of the LP, or having the phrase "beard-hop" or "indie hip hop" there would have been fine.
 
 
Tom Coates
20:44 / 13.05.02
General board guidelines are that the clearer the thread title the better. I can't remember exactly when that was said of course , but it has been said. There are too many forums and too many threads for any individual to be able to handle them all adequately. As a result, it's legitimate for people to want to be able to read things that immediately spark them off and not open up the same thread by accident on four different days because they can't remember what it's about.

So please - write what your thread's about in the subject line and a summary of your post in the abstract field.
 
 
Seth
05:47 / 14.05.02
Sorry to piss people off with thread titles. Sometimes I'll just post up a joke that I assume everyone will get when they see it in the context of the first post. Obviously not in this case. I probably just assumed people's familiarity because the board's become like a lock-in in a local pub, and because this particular debate has gone on for well over a year - but now I can see that not everyone would have picked up on that from my initial post.

Have people always had a problem with this? I've been doing similar stuff since I joined the board, and I'd hate to think people had a problem and just never mentioned it before. Having a lot of pissed off people reading your threads is not a good thing...
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
07:47 / 14.05.02
I've often been guilty of this too... but, hey. Point taken. I will try to mend my ways.
 
 
Tom Coates
10:19 / 14.05.02
I think it's a function of the amount of threads going on. The more threads there are, the more important it is that they're labelled clearly. I don't think anyone minds the odd joke post or joke thread - particularly in the Conversation of course - but as a rule if you WANT discussion or debate (and generally you should, I think), then the clearer the better.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
11:48 / 14.05.02
I should just keep my dumb mouth shut.

My apologies for wasting your time on this.
 
 
Tom Coates
13:20 / 14.05.02
Potus, seriously, it's OK. Really!
 
 
wanderingstar
13:35 / 14.05.02
if it had been called "Fucking incredible new album by beard-hop pioneer" or something similar, i would have looked at it.

Even if it had been titled something like this, all I would see on the front page would be 'Fucking incredib...'. Do the thread titles get cut off for everyone, or just me? Is this fixable? This is another thing that makes me want the Today's Active Threads page back.
 
 
The Knowledge
22:41 / 14.05.02
Posted by Bio k9:

"Prick."

This made me think: Who the hell does she think she is?

I was never this bad.
 
 
Seth
05:34 / 15.05.02
S'ok. I've been called worse, with even les cause than in this case.
 
 
bio k9
08:56 / 15.05.02
"Prick" was directed at Potus.
And at Knowledges mother.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
12:02 / 15.05.02
And well deserved it was as well.

Tom, that was one of those pop culture reference jokes.
 
 
Seth
15:37 / 15.05.02
Thanks for clarifying, Bio K9. Huggles.
 
 
mondo a-go-go
09:05 / 16.05.02
"the board's become like a lock-in in a local pub"

indeed. and for those people who are banging on the door wanting in (sometimes i include myself amongst this number), it's not always a lot of fun, or very interesting. ;]
 
 
Tom Coates
17:07 / 16.05.02
Yeah well, unfortunately we can protest about how difficult and irritating the board must be to people who can't get in. But unfortunately people like Andrew have made it almost impossible to open up the site so if you want to blame anyone and complain about it.........
 
  
Add Your Reply