The Lemon Fool

I am finding it quite amusing to see the number bemoaning the fact that it wastes time to click on a misleading link
yet have time to contribute to this post
(just teasing before I get flamed )

pje16 wrote:I am finding it quite amusing to see the number bemoaning the fact that it wastes time to click on a misleading link
yet have time to contribute to this post

I agree.

Apart from one small point - I see no evidence to suggest in any way that the referred to titles are "misleading".

Snookered

Gengulphus wrote:

XFool wrote:

Lootman wrote:I do not much like these vague overly-casual titles, but I think the rules might need to be stiffened up a bit in order to elevate such instances to the level of candidates for removing the topic (or perhaps, changing the title).

Or, to put it succinctly, so some people may perhaps have a mechanism which they could use for removing an entire topic that, for one reason or another, they have taken a dislike to?

So Lootman's "perhaps" alternative of changing the title is likely to be a better way of dealing with such cases than removing the entire thread.

Indeed. Although I still have a bit of a problem with the rule:

"To make this a valued and successful discussion forum, LemonFool asks all users to be respectful, understanding and helpful to other posters."

For instance, taking just the "understanding" part of that, what does it mean to say that I should be "understanding to other posters". It doesn't quite make sense to me as stated.

The requirement to be "helpful to other posters" sounds reasonable. But then if I post something that everyone already knows then it isn't really helping anyone. So should it be removed? (*)

The idea of being "respectful to other posters" seems less controversial and subjective. Although even there I think the idea is more about being respectful to another individual, say by not calling him names. Rather than a very general sense of "respectful". I may click on a topic or post of yours and decide that it does not interest, inform or entertain me. But that doesn't mean you were being disrespectful.

(*) Back in the TMF days I once had a post removed for it "being factually incorrect". I had always thought that the point of a debate was for different parties to present different opinions, and the resultant discussion then tried to resolve the question of who was right or wrong. But apparently in that case I was not allowed to be wrong!

XFool wrote:

pje16 wrote:I am finding it quite amusing to see the number bemoaning the fact that it wastes time to click on a misleading link
yet have time to contribute to this post

I agree.

Apart from one small point - I see no evidence to suggest in any way that the referred to titles are "misleading".

One is "Fully Responsible?". How is one to even guess at the subject?

The other is "It just won't go away, will it?", which again tells me nothing. It may to you, being the OP.

Perhaps you can elucidate?

TJH

It was rather ironic that one topic I noticed was entitled "Irony?". But I have no idea what that was about, without opening it.

This now getting quite complex

tjh290633 wrote:

XFool wrote:

pje16 wrote:I am finding it quite amusing to see the number bemoaning the fact that it wastes time to click on a misleading link
yet have time to contribute to this post

I agree.

Apart from one small point - I see no evidence to suggest in any way that the referred to titles are "misleading".

One is "Fully Responsible?". How is one to even guess at the subject?

The other is "It just won't go away, will it?", which again tells me nothing. It may to you, being the OP.

So, if they have told you "nothing", how have you been misled? Please explain.

OTOH, as just one example, the thread 'Tom & Jerry’s Life In London' on the London lovers board is not, as one might be led to suppose, about the characters from "an American animated media franchise and series of comedy short films created in 1940 by William Hanna and Joseph Barbera. "

Rather it is: "From Wikipedia "Tom and Jerry" was a commonplace phrase for youngsters indulging in riotous behaviour in 19th-century London."

Misleading, huh?

pje16 wrote:This now getting quite complex

Or just sillier?

Could people stop making light of a serious issue that makes the site harder to use

It takes 2 seconds to click on a topic, and decide that it's not of interest.
I wonder how much time has been expended moaning in this thread....

V8

88V8 wrote:It takes 2 seconds to click on a topic, and decide that it's not of interest.

That's how much time it takes you. It may take others considerably longer, if e.g. they're accessing this site over a slow connection, or reading the post on a small mobile screen and their eyesight isn't good enough to deal with making the font size very small.

And even for those for whom it takes 2 seconds, how much of their time ends up being wasted depends on how many obscure topic titles they encounter - and the total amount of users' time that ends up being wasted depends on how many users are affected.

And why not look at both sides of the issue of users' time used? E.g. how much time do you think it ought to take a poster to call their thread "Trumpism just won't go away, will it?" rather than "It just won't go away, will it?"?

Gengulphus

Gengulphus wrote:
How much time do you think it ought to take a poster to call their thread "Trumpism just won''t go away, will it?" rather than "It just won't go away, will it?"?

Well to be fair, now that particular thread has turned into one of those all-too-regu!ar 'Lootman vs Stemis' verbal spats, it seems that for the first time in the life of that particular thread-title, it actually now looks to make complete sense....

:O)

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Gengulphus wrote:And why not look at both sides of the issue of users' time used? E.g. how much time do you think it ought to take a poster to call their thread "Trumpism just won't go away, will it?" rather than "It just won't go away, will it?"?

That presumes the issues can be exactly and fully summed up by the word "Trumpism".

XFool wrote:

Gengulphus wrote:And why not look at both sides of the issue of users' time used? E.g. how much time do you think it ought to take a poster to call their thread "Trumpism just won't go away, will it?" rather than "It just won't go away, will it?"?

That presumes the issues can be exactly and fully summed up by the word "Trumpism".

No, it assumes that "Trumpism" is a better fit than "It", and wastes less time and causes less site user confusion.

For a relatively few seconds of consideration and courtesy it reduces the issue, even if it doesn't "exactly and fully" eliminate it.

dealtn wrote:

XFool wrote:

Gengulphus wrote:And why not look at both sides of the issue of users' time used? E.g. how much time do you think it ought to take a poster to call their thread "Trumpism just won't go away, will it?" rather than "It just won't go away, will it?"?

That presumes the issues can be exactly and fully summed up by the word "Trumpism".

No, it assumes that "Trumpism" is a better fit than "It", and wastes less time and causes less site user confusion.

For a relatively few seconds of consideration and courtesy it reduces the issue, even if it doesn't "exactly and fully" eliminate it.

Let's get this straight:

1. There are site rules for TLF posters, the moderators decide on their application.

2. I am not going to be told how to write my posts by other posters on TLF. (If you don't like them, don't read them)

So, you can slam that one.

XFool wrote:

dealtn wrote:

XFool wrote:That presumes the issues can be exactly and fully summed up by the word "Trumpism".

No, it assumes that "Trumpism" is a better fit than "It", and wastes less time and causes less site user confusion.

For a relatively few seconds of consideration and courtesy it reduces the issue, even if it doesn't "exactly and fully" eliminate it.

Let's get this straight:

1. There are site rules for TLF posters, the moderators decide on their application.

2. I am not going to be told how to write my posts by other posters on TLF. (If you don't like them, don't read them)

So, you can slam that one.

Perhaps we can persuade you, and others like you, to be more explicit in your titles, and to change your ways.

TJH

tjh290633 wrote:

XFool wrote:

dealtn wrote:No, it assumes that "Trumpism" is a better fit than "It", and wastes less time and causes less site user confusion.

For a relatively few seconds of consideration and courtesy it reduces the issue, even if it doesn't "exactly and fully" eliminate it.

Let's get this straight:

1. There are site rules for TLF posters, the moderators decide on their application.

2. I am not going to be told how to write my posts by other posters on TLF. (If you don't like them, don't read them)

So, you can slam that one.

Perhaps we can persuade you, and others like you, to be more explicit in your titles, and to change your ways.

Given that he has devoted dozens of posts in this topic to defending his right to use bad titles rather than a just a simple "Fair comment, I will do better", I would not hold out much hope for such reasonableness.

The best advice might be to ignore all top posts by any Lemon who makes a habit of doing this.

Just to point out a couple of things. The title of this thread is: Obscure Topic Titles

During this 'discussion', various other terms have been used to describe the titles used by posters on TLF, often more than once. I include below a selection of terms used by posters in this thread;

"clickbait"
"cute"
"misleading"
"offending post"
"use bad titles"
"wasting peoples' time"

Let's look at a couple of word definitions:

US (Which I do think is appropriate here!)
'cute'
trying to be clever, sometimes in a rude or unpleasant way: Don't be cute with me, Vicki.

'Clickbait'
"Clickbait is a text or a thumbnail link that is designed to attract attention and to entice users to follow that link and read, view, or listen to the linked piece of online content, being typically deceptive, sensationalized, or otherwise misleading. Wikipedia"

With all the above in mind, it seems to me that more than one poster on this thread is assuming (even asserting) bad faith on the part of other TLF users.

Now I may have got this wrong, but I seem to recollect the old UK TMF posting guidelines included a recommendation: "Assume good faith on the part of other posters."

Perhaps it is time to incorporate something similar into TLF rules and guidelines?

I reckon over 99% of all thread titles on this site are not obscure at all. I'm amazed that there is so much hot air over a tiny proportion of threads..


As others have said, just ignore them. You probably won't miss much. If the thread has, say 267 posts on it maybe it might be worth looking anyway.

Chris