Anyone else noticed that Min's absent for a week?

[SteelCurtain]

It's really 100% about vagueness and the title not telling what the thread's about rather than a title being enticing or making people wanting to click on it.

[Catholic_Lady]

Why is anyone getting worked up about this rule? It's really not that big of a deal lol.

[ignoramus]

Mike, it's not helping? I need a yes or no...

I'll take a vague answer as a yes? Yes?

[Iroscato]

Clickbait is a scourge of the online world that must be fought on every front. I welcome the new rule, personally.

[AFTT47]

I personally think "clickbait" is a big deal. It had gotten to the point where I hardly ever clicked on one of Min's threads because the titles were so vague. Then it got to the point where half the threads in the forum were vague and in my opinion, that makes the forum unusable.

There's a reason for thread titles: So the user can scan through them and decide which ones to peruse, based on his or her interest. Deliberately making a title vague is message forum vandalism IMHO. When half the threads have titles like, "Guess What?" you have a non-functional forum. Click-bait is evil.

[robvalue]

Okay, so this is really about quality control of titles. I can see why that might be desirable, but I have a lot of reservations about whether implementing this rule is worth whatever little will be gained from it.

I'm just giving my opinion here. I'm aware my opinion doesn't matter ultimately, but I feel I should be allowed to give it anyway.

1) Could be seen as patronizing and insulting. I can understand why Min left, as this is clearly going to impact him a lot. As far as I can tell, this was based on... one person moaning a bit on the forum? And a change is made that is very pointed towards one of the most valued members of the community, telling him his titles aren't good enough. I know rules in general need to be independent of members, but there has to be a line somewhere. This is something that should have been seen coming, and the justification feels extremely weak.

2) Highly subjective. Who is to say what is enough information? Some people just suck at writing things in general. Other things make topic titles harder to read, such as typos, meaningless drivel and bad formatting. This seems rather an arbitrary choice.

3) This doesn't seem at all in line with the "free speech" values. Nor is it in line with "Just put people on ignore if you don't like their posts".

4) Quality control... is a slippery slope. What's next? Cows fucking arm chairs? This is worse than Hitler.

Thanks for reading! If you read this far. If you didn't, then fuck you! You can't be insulted, because you didn't read this far. So I win.

[emjay]

Well fuck me then Rob cos that's the first part I saw (I'll read the rest of your post now )

I've forgot what I was gonna say now

[robvalue]

Lol

That was the most important part. Or the least. I forget. It was over ten seconds ago I wrote that, and my memory of the past gets pretty hazy. What was all that bullshit?

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Sorry guys but what a dumb rule. Topic titles can be creative. It shouldn't always have to be on point, that makes for boring titles.

It's a matter of preference. I for one like a bit of intriguing title and some of you don't. No reason to completely ban fun titles though.

[robvalue]

That's a good point. And if the person isn't breaking some other rule, then really it's just a case of not liking the kind of content they produce. That's very personal, and the ignore function covers it fine. If doesn't hurt anyone, or impact any other topics. It doesn't inhibit discussion.