Should the Staff edit Thread Titles for better clarity and motivation?

[Phi for All]

The Moderators have been discussing whether we should do more to help drive traffic and garner interest in our threads by more creative editing of thread titles. We're not talking about sensationalism or uber-hyped marketing ploys here, just changing some titles to hopefully make them clearer and more interesting.

 

Many people gloss over the fact that the title of a thread can generate a great deal of interest or it can also act to deflect someone who might otherwise be a great participant in the conversation. We get a lot of titles that are vague and don't help generate the kind of interest we all want for our topics. "Pls Help" or some variation is often used when "Where did I go wrong in this equation?" targets the best people suited for such help, specifies what kind of help is needed and provides a motivation in the form of an intellectual challenge. The latter is also formed as a question that implies it comes from an inquisitive knowledge-seeker rather than someone who can't be bothered to Google.

 

Another problem we've noticed are titles that make an assertion that gets completely refuted in the thread. "Proof of Alien Life Found in Schenectady!" remains on content pages while the actual content shows that this "alien life" was actually a fake or an unfounded assertion. People cruising the list of topics might take such a title more seriously than we'd like without reading the actual content. "Is This Evidence of Alien Life?" is not only more intellectually honest, it would probably draw more readers and participants than its "National Enquirer" alternative, at least from OUR membership.

 

Currently, we only correct misspellings (which we feel also helps validate participation from other scholars) or inappropriate language (which is already covered under the rules). We certainly aren't interested in censoring so much as helping draw the right traffic to each thread. We can change the titles at will, so if we misstep we can always change it back if the thread starter objects. We're also not interested in PM exchanges explaining why we changed a title or why the author wants it changed back. If you have a reason for that specific wording in your title, we'll change it back as soon as possible. We could probably have both for a while ("How contaminated is our water? [formerly titled: Water]"), eventually dropping the former title if there are no objections.

 

What do you think? Should Staff be allowed to change certain titles to make them more descriptive and interesting? Are you drawn to find out more about vague titles or do you tend to gloss over threads with uninteresting names?

[dimreepr]

I, for one, would welcome the help of moderators in this. I have sat desperately racking my brains for an appropriate title and, often, have just settled for a bland uninteresting option, that garners little or no response.

 

EDIT/

 

Having said that I can foresee problems in this approach with some members, perhaps an extra option could be introduced where members could either opt in or out of such help.

Edited January 13, 2013 by dimreepr

[iNow]

I would only care if MY threads were impacted. It's rather possible that you'd have changed my thread title, "People who believe in god are broken" to something more like "iNow asks if people who believe in god are broken" and that would have ruined the participation rate since it is far less sensational or response inducing. I would have disagreed with such a move and probably been told "too bad, deal with it" if I complained.

 

If the thread title is "Plz help," then by all means... that makes good sense. If the thread title is "Einstein was wrong," then I think specifying it might potentially be okay if you provided context like, "Einstein was wrong - A question about length contraction" or something along those lines. Otherwise, I think it's generally best to leave it as is... especially when the first few posts of the thread will almost always sufficiently address the claim.

 

As a general rule, IMO it's better to leave mod subjectivity out of it and to let threads and thread participation naturally select. If people write poor titles, then that's their problem, with the exception of homework help, maybe.

[Phi for All]

I would only care if MY threads were impacted. It's rather possible that you'd have changed my thread title, "People who believe in god are broken" to something more like "iNow asks if people who believe in god are broken" and that would have ruined the participation rate since it is far less sensational or response inducing. I would have disagreed with such a move and probably been told "too bad, deal with it" if I complained.

I anticipated this, and almost used that very thread as an example of a title that had had some thought behind it. And your case is different since your longevity, reputation and (most importantly) your track record of interesting posts here means you're not ignoring the importance of a good title.

 

With regard to "People who believe in god are broken", there was a reaction to the assertion in the title but it was a) not in a science section, and b) not clearly refuted in the thread. This type of editing could only be done once a fair amount of responses had shown the title to be misleading. As an example, Contraction of length under relativity proven wrong looks like the title will need to be changed if the responses continue to refute the OP. If the thread starter can't counter the posts that show his title is inaccurate, why should we tarnish our image by leaving the title alone to be misinterpreted by guests and members who didn't get as far as the content? And doesn't a title like that attract even more rigor-free members from all over the web the longer it's left up that way?

[iNow]

If any edits need to be made, I would append the phrase [ASSERTION REFUTED] to the end of the title, nothing else.

[StringJunky]

It annoys me when people put positive and invariably wrong claims of refuting well-established theories in their title. As far as I'm concerned the mods can have carte blanche to change it to whatever they think fit.

Edited January 13, 2013 by StringJunky

[Genecks]

As an educated person, it annoys me when an individual changes the title I have made unless there are spelling errors or I've made some kind of error where I've duplicated a word or something...

 

Otherwise, I do not like people changing my thread title, as I consider keywords that a web spider may pick-up whenever I generate a particular title.

[StringJunky]

As an educated person, it annoys me when an individual changes the title I have made unless there are spelling errors or I've made some kind of error where I've duplicated a word or something...

 

Otherwise, I do not like people changing my thread title, as I consider keywords that a web spider may pick-up whenever I generate a particular title.

 

Being an educated person who understands the requirements, I don't think a mod is likely to modify one of your titles except for typos.

Edited March 5, 2013 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

As an educated person, it annoys me when an individual changes the title I have made unless there are spelling errors or I've made some kind of error where I've duplicated a word or something...

 

Otherwise, I do not like people changing my thread title, as I consider keywords that a web spider may pick-up whenever I generate a particular title.

 

I would never change someone's title because I thought their word choices were poor or I thought of a catchier version. Spelling mistake correction seems to be OK with everyone so far.

 

My main concern remains with those titles that make assertions that are being actively discussed. When it becomes very clear that the assertion is being refuted with little or no evidence in support of it, I think the titles should be amended so people who are glancing at titles aren't encouraged to assume they have support. I would even go further and suggest that bald assertions don't really belong in titles anyway. They have a tendency to produce bias in readers who would be more neutral towards a supposition ("Do Pulsars Contradict the Theory of Relativity?" as opposed to "Pulsars Contradict the Theory of Relativity").

 

Being an educated person who understands the requirements, I don't think a mod is likely to modify one of your titles except for typos.

 

Bunko.

Banjo.

Bingo.

[Genecks]

If an individual is generating a thesis and attempting to generate or generating an argument, I do not see too much of a problem with the individual putting a simplified version of his or her thesis in the title. Sure, I dislike threads from time to time that only contain an argument as the body rather than asking some questions. However, generating an argument is another form of communication. Unless the individual is trolling, I do not see anything wrong with an individual generating an argument in the body of a new thread with the title as a simplified form of his or her thesis.

 

However, trolling can also go along with people asking questions... so, it works both ways. As such, I would argue that people can be biased to think that those who ask questions must be serious. You have the Socratic dialogue, and you have the individual who makes an argument.

 

I think when an individual makes an argument with other educated individuals, the person is saying, "I believe this! I have evidence for it!" However, it would be kind for the individual to say at the end, "Refute, agree, or compromise!"

 

In terms of alien life, people could simply say, "We don't talk about aliens here. Seek therapy. Thread locked."

Edited March 5, 2013 by Genecks