Alternative to "click bait" rule: block threads

[SteelCurtain]

We lost one of our oldest members because of a pointless rule that no one was asking for. I find that disturbing. I'm hoping the situation could be revised.

There are too many incorrect assumptions in this statement to count.

[Cyberman]

I suggest perhaps change the name of the rule to "Misleading Thread Titles".

The main reason I'd like this is because I find the idea of a rule regarding changing the name of misleading titles to have its own title changed for being misleading rather deliciously ironically hilarious.

No you don't. You find it rather deliciously and hilariously ironic. Otherwise you'd be finding it hilarious for non-hilarious reasons.

[vorlon13]

LOL, I checked my stats here, and in over 20,000 posts I have made at AF, I've only ever launched 145 topics, and some of them are in the mod area.

[Tiberius]

I was the person who originally proposed the new rule. Nobody was asking for it, but I had noticed an increase in what I saw as clickbaity subjects and subjects that lack any kind of information about what the thread is about.

In my mind, a "thread subject" should at least give the reader some kind of notion about the subject of the thread.

The splitting of the subject so that half of it is in the subject line and the other half is the first line of the post was a major pet peeve of mine. I can't understand why someone would do that unless they were actively trying to entice people into threads by purposefully leaving out information from an otherwise good thread subject.

[abaris]

I can't understand why someone would do that unless they were actively trying to entice people into threads by purposefully leaving out information from an otherwise good thread subject.

But isn't that the purpose of every thread being created? Actively enticing people into threads? It's your site of course, but try as I might I view this one as overregulating the regulations. Everyone coming here obviously has some seconds to spare to determine for themselves if a thread is interesting or not by looking at the contents.

I for one feel much more repelled by the occasional wall of text we get to see when opening a thread. There's this "no way I'm gonna read this" feeling. What I also don't like is something like "Look at this" and then there's a 40 minutes youtube video without any explanation inside.

[brewer]

I was the person who originally proposed the new rule. Nobody was asking for it, but I had noticed an increase in what I saw as clickbaity subjects and subjects that lack any kind of information about what the thread is about.

In my mind, a "thread subject" should at least give the reader some kind of notion about the subject of the thread.

The splitting of the subject so that half of it is in the subject line and the other half is the first line of the post was a major pet peeve of mine. I can't understand why someone would do that unless they were actively trying to entice people into threads by purposefully leaving out information from an otherwise good thread subject.

My take, it's about the same as an OP  with no dialogue. Just some site or youtube vid.

[Catholic_Lady]

I don't care one way or the other. Just don't really get the big controversy. To each their own I suppose.

[Tiberius]

I'd say the purpose of a thread is to start a discussion. I think at a minimum people can make the thread subject clear about what the discussion will be about.

[surreptitious57]

The easiest way to deal with click bait is to just ignore it like with any trolling. If everyone did that then those posting it would realise it was having no
effect and may stop doing it as a consequence. Of course reality is not this simple. I personally find that not getting angry at combinations of signifiers
on my computer screen very helpful indeed. For mods and those with significantly less impulse control it might be more preferable to have click bait as
a particular offence punishable by perma banning. Say five strikes and out. Less of it means less work for mods and less anger for those reading it also

[Rhondazvous]

I feel the click bait rule is a bad idea and a bad direction for the forum to go in, so I have a possible alternative.

Just like you can put people in your "ignore" group and "buddy" group, have another group called "block threads" or similar.

When you put someone in this third category, any threads they start will be removed from view when you look at the list of threads.

In this way, people need to take ownership of the quality of their posts, threads and titles in general. If you decide someone doesn't make good threads for whatever reason, including because you think they are "click bait", you just shut them out. So the reward for writing bad stuff will be that less and less people will be reading it. You then just have a nice clean list of topics, started by people you still want to read, and there's no need to start judging the quality of titles as staff.

I'd rather go on a thread by thread bases. Why have a rule or a special block list?.I'd simply not read a thread that looks like click bait. Why do you think people here are bothered by click bait threads since most of them go on for 40 pages.


btw, you have a pm.