New Policy re: changing thread titles?
 

I wanted to name this "The Idiot Moderators Keep Changing My Thread Titles" but thought better of it. ;)

I have noticed what seems to be a rise in mods changing someone's thread title to be more descriptive, like this one: http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=237838 (see the subject line of T-Ball's 1st post to see what the thread title was initially). In another thread title change, the new title actually caused one poster to think that the thread starter was making arguments that perhaps he wasn't: http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...4&pagenumber=2

Is there some new policy or new effort to crack down on a perceived "bad" re: thread titles? It seems like this has happened a lot more frequently as of late. Although sometimes thread titles are just wrong (either because they are mispelled or intentionally inflammatory), it seems as if part of the fun can be coming up with a playful thread topic, one that intrigues people into coming into the thread you start because they're not sure what it's all about. I think T-Ball's thread is a perfect example of this. He made you want to look, to see why the riot broke out. What's wrong with that? Does it upset the "anti-Krispy Kreme lobby" because gosh darn it they had to look at another Krispy Kreme thread? :D

Just wondering...

http://dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread....5&pagenumber=1

It's something that is being enforced more lately.

I'm all for it. I was getting really tired of going to threads on topics I had no interest in just because of a misleading subject header. A good subject header, like a good headline, should explain what the topic is about in a short succinct manner. It should not be used as an "advertisement" that tricks people into increasing the number of views for your thread.

Like I said in the linked thread above, I usually clear up vague thread titles because I know how much it annoys me to go into a vaguely-titled thread and have the thread be something that I was not at all interested in reading.

Thread titles aren't supposed to be playful or suspenseful. They're supposed to tell you what's inside, so you don't waste time clicking on a thread you would otherwise not have clicked if the thread title had been informative.

How about also adding a "(r)" to the end of the title as shorthand for "renamed"?

The original title is left intact in the first post. Not sure what good adding an "(r)" would do.

Guilty, m'lud!
 

<small></small>:up:

I <i>always</i> look at this and was kind of surprised to discover that other people didn't also. On the other hand, I also often see how people haven't read much of the thread before responding for the n-th time with a point that has either alreeady been made or which has been superseded by a clarification from the original poster so I guess I should not be surprised at anyoine missing such a small detail.

All this said, I <i>still</i> tend to pay more attention to the body of a post than to its subject-title.

Check the second thread that LurkerDan linked. I notice when the thread title has been changed, you notice it...but others don't.

<b>Aghama</b>, he linked to page two. If you read the first post on page one you should see that the original (IMO meaningless) title is in fairly plain view.

I think this all comes down to how closely people are prepared to read things: we all make interpretive mistakes from time to time but I wonder how far the poster (or the moderator) must go in order to ensure that someone does not simply miss the point....

Re: Guilty, m'lud!
 

Why on earth would I think to look at the subject line when 99%+ of the time it is identical to the thread title, and I have been given no indication that in this instance the title has been changed? Yes, I agree, I don't pay much attention to the thread title overall in comparison to the body of the post, but I think it is kinda silly to expect people to know that a title has been changed. In re: that particular thread, I am really not sure why you felt the need to change the title in the first place. It more or less gives enough info to know what the thread is about.

I'm not trying to bitch here, or question a particular decision, I was mostly just curious. But, to continue to use that one as an example: what is the goal here? If as Static suggests, titles are supposed to tell you what's inside, how did "Chastised for defacing South Park Molester at CD store" not give somebody a good enough idea of what was inside? Ok, maybe it wasn't the best title he could have chosen, but is that what you are now trying to do, pick the best possible thread titles? Or is it just make sure that thread titles give a reader a fair indication of the subject matter therein?

Perhaps Aghama's idea of an "(r)" for renamed should be considered?

Maybe we wouldn't have to even consider the "(r)"...

Re: Re: Guilty, m'lud!
 

<small></small>1) Who is "South Park Molester"?

2) How was he/she/it defaced?

The post first appeared in Music Talk and I considered that it was more appropriate to Other and decided to move it. Before doing so I thought that it would be better to rectify both the artist's name and to clarify the action that had been carried out.

In addition to this I slotted in the reference to "free speech" - deliberately followed by a "?" - at the front. The idea was to encourage debate, although I had no idea that there would be undue focus on the title.

Guess what? If you read all of the posts in the thread, for a full two days the (revised) title was not an issue....

.... I stand by my earlier comments. However, I <i>always</i> take note of implicit or explicit feedback: it often informs future actions.

X: Except that it's not just the ellipsis violators that are being targeted.

Also, maybe it's just me, but if my thread title was changed I would like some sort of indication made rather than just a phantom edit. To me it's a curtesy thing. Actually, it's very likely just me.

That's why I said "and were more considerate by better titling threads"

If someone cares enough to see if the current title of a thread is the same as the original title the author used, they can compare the subject line of the first post with it. The only time anyone other than maybe the author(who should be able to spot that their thread title was changed) would care about the title is if they were tricked into entering a thread because of a vague title. When I change a thread title my intention is generally to "give a reader a fair indication of the subject matter". There are times that I edit a title to change the tone of a thread. For example, someone might start a thread called:

"This is why Florida should be destroyed and everyone living there should be shot"

and all the thread contains is an article titled

"Florida problems with voting not quite fixed"

The first title might cause someone living in Florida to come into the thread with both guns blazing, while the second title sets a better tone for the discussion and is true to the content of the post.

And they should know to check if the title says something like...

"I just steamed and ate a crap"

because it probably used to say

"I just steamed and ate a carp"

benedict: But the fact is, your edit caused a great deal of confusion. You can blame the people who post all you want, but if you hadn't changed the title then it wouldn't have happened.

These are how I see the options, in my heavily skewed view:

1) The mods can go about as they have been doing, changing the titles as they see fit, which takes time and can cause confusion (though admittedly not often).

2) The mods can act as they had been before a few weeks ago, and only change titles that are offensive or overly inflammatory.

3) The mods can persue option 1), while also using a couple extra keystrokes to mention that the title has been changed.

And if changing a thread like...

"How do I remove a brown stain from my poster?"

has to look like this...

"How do I remove a brown stain from my underwear? (r)"

then we might see a post titled this...

"Idiot Posters Ruined My Fun"

:)

I vote for convenience. ;)

Please re-read the thead: the <i>original</i> title caused confusion.

No-one focused on the question asked in the first two words in the new new title for a day or so. Then one very cogent poster did and people followed his lead.

I have seen the exact same thing happen time and time again <i>without there having been any title change whatsoever</i>. People look at and respond to a follow-up and drift quite some way from what was actually said in the original post(s). Say it ain't so.

;)

I don't think a bunch of people jumping in making flippant comments about South Park are confused.

Yes, people get confused regardless or just fail to read the first post. But that doesn't mean ya should try to make them more confused.

I agree that the new title didn't cause an issue for a while, but I disagree that the original title cause confusion. I really think that there's a fuzzy line between changing misleading thread titles, or vague titles, and changing ones that aren't quite as good as you would like them to be. The original in this case wasn't perfect, by any means, but it gave me a good enough indication of what might be inside.

Furthermore, other titles aren't chnaged that are equally as vague or misdescriptive (see my example of "Car Surfing" in the other vagueness thread). I realize you aren't an Other mod, and I'm not singling you out, but I think that y'all need to recognize that in the more "free form" forums, a little playfulness (and messing with a person's name is playfulness, IMO) is ok...

If I were you guys, I'd probably choose option 2) if only to shut us up.

[I can say no more]
 

If 1% of the thread title changes I make blow back in my face I just think I will have to live with it. Of course, as soon as I realised what had transpired I made an announcement in that thread and apologised separately to <b>eintier</b> for the resultant "confusion".

The fact is that I publicly telepgraph a considerable proportion of administrative changes I make by way of [merger], [duplicate] notices in thread titles or through italicised blue comments within posts themselves.<small></small>As well as pointing out precisely where the "drift" started and observing that this happens many, many times where there has been no title change, I have answered the direct question in full as to why I made that specific change.

I can't speak as to why all other titles aren't tidied up. Or why all duplicates aren't immediately closed or merged. Or why all threadcrappers aren't straightaway warned or suspended or....

.... but I can speculate that, as indicated time and again in this very forum, it is down to the human factor.

As already stated, I do tend to act on feedback.

;) And should I ever feel moved to change any of <b>Aghama</b>'s thread titles most likely there will be an (r) left on public display. Of course 50% of the follow-ups will be asking what the (r) means and/or saying that only an idiot would misinterpret what he meant by the original title but them, as they say, is the breaks.

benedict, I don't even know if it would be accurate to say "we can agree to disagree" since I'm not entirely sure if we disagree. :) And I am sorry, I didn't mean to single you out, other than the fact that thread was fresh in my mind (i.e. I didn't intend to have it "blow back" in your face). Truth be told, since you don't mod the Other, it really isn't much of an issue.

And, I appreciate your thoughtful discussion on this matter.

:)

Actually, mine is a multi-tiered plan, where altered thread titles would be appended with (renamed) or (revised). This would be slowly phased out in favor of the shorter (by 2/3) (r) designation.

I can forward you the flow charts if you would like.

I hate to bring this to the top, but I still see this happening an awful lot in Other, even though I heard in this thread: http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...4&pagenumber=2 that "Other has always been a place where the rules are more lax and any title changes are generally a matter of trying to avoid confusion or fights, getting rid of objectionable words, and the occassional moderator/admin joke." (Blade).

I have seen it happening a lot there, but this one took the cake for me: http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=240874

Note that Ranger's post was 9-24-02, and I guess the thread had 0 replies. 8 days later, PerpleNerple posts a thread entitled "It was nice knowing you all...", which a mod then merged with Ranger's 8 days old 0-reply thread. :hscratch: As near as I can tell, Ranger maybe posted another thread later today, but then all three were merged. Why resurrect Ranger's old thread, effectively renaming PerpleNerple's thread, when a simple lock of Ranger's 2nd thread (if that is indeed what happened) would have sufficed? PerpleNerple's title was funny, a play on all the goodbye threads we've seen over the years, and this is the Other Forum. There was no confusion or fights, no mod joke (in fact, the joke was taken out by renaming it!).

Look, I understand why you do this in the more informational forums, but it is happening on a regular basis in Other also, and it really seems to detract from some of the fun. Yes, I'm saying it: "The fun has left the Forum" :D

Sorry, that was my mess up.

I saw that Ranger's thread was the one most recently posted to. I mistakenly thought that since it had only one reply(the one that made you think there was a third thread behind the grassy knoll), it had just been created. Figured that the reason it was started as a new thread was because of the other thread's vague title, so I just merged the two(expecting this "new" thread to come at the end of the "It was nice knowing you all..." one). But, to my surprise, the first post in Ranger's thread became the first post of the new merged thread(since it was 8 days old). Because of this, I switched the title to that of the older thread.

So no conspiracy here, I just screwed up. [cya]Or did I? Since both threads were on the same subject, I did the proper thing by merging the threads under the title of the original one.[/cya]

I see Blade was wrong, and you guys have gotten really stuffy to the point that even a funny joke about/play on goodbye threads that was---gasp---uninformative makes you feel suckered to the point that you seem to think that renaming was an appropriate reaction in Other. Yes, I'v read AndyCapps response, so I know it wasn't you, but your tone makes it pretty clear that you approve of this sort of change.

Edited to add: I realize that AndyCapps explained this one, but it is happening an awful lot in Other, and I find it rather annoying and also that it makes the place more lifeless.

I didn't think enough of it to change the title. But given that it was done I think it's perfectly defensible. And it has 10 times more to do with wasting bandwidth than it has to do with wasting people's time. Think about how many people would read another hurricane report, no matter how clever. Many more people will read a goodbye.

I guess we could start forwarding the complaints we get about vague titles your way. ;)

Can't please everyone all the time, unfortunately.

And if he is willing to pay for the bandwidth I think some people would be very happy! :)

It was totally confusing. I did try to find my first thread and then replied and posted an update, I thought that it was only going to be the first reply. I am POSITIVE that I replied in the same thread, I didn't post a new thread! What's the big deal???

Blame the weather for sending TWO hurricanes here in two weeks, OK, not the mods or whatever. But YES, PN's thread title was confusing, MINE was clear! Everybody knows I live in Louisiana!

PS, I did NOTHING wrong, I followed the ruiles. I can't read every thread here. I didn't read the other thread by PN, B/C I thought it was just going to be another Goodbye thread like Dr. DVD's a few weeks ago.

You did nothing wrong. :)

You did reply to your original thread. That bumped it to the top of the threads list. As I stated earlier, I mistakenly thought you created the thread after PN's. So I merged the two threads. Since your first post happened before the first post in PN's thread, it came first in the merged thread. Since your second post came after the last post of PN's thread, it shows up last in the merged thread. Since your thread came first, I gave the merged thread your original title.

Apprepicate it! :D

I think maybe you misunderstood. I wasn't blaming you for anything; I'm sorry if you felt that I or anyone else was.

That's the problem with using an example. You try to pick an example as an example of a consistent practice, and the response is almost solely to address the example. I still don't know which to believe, Blade's statement or the policy that is apparently being followed. Actually, I suppose that's not true; it seems fairly apparent that Blade's statement is not really correct (sorry Blade :() because that's just not what is happening in Other.

And X, although I have no idea how much bandwidth an occasionally non-descriptive thread title in Other eats up, I have donated to DVDTalk, so it's not like I'm a deadbeat. I can't tell if that's your implication or not, but I thought I should point that out.

I'd like to point out again that this latest example really has nothing to do with this thread. I would have left the vague thread title alone if not for the merge. When I merge two threads discussing the same topic, I give it the thread title of the first thread.

As far as the changing of vague thread titles in Other goes, there has been a forum wide call to action to ensure that threads are some sort of discussion. Vague thread titles often cause several "I didn't expect this thread to be about this" posts which take away from the topic. Good discussion topics can be ruined by vague titles. Will vague titles be changed as vigorously in Other as they are in other forums? No. Will they be changed if the focus of the thread completely shifts away from the topic to the thread title chosen? Yes. Are the moderators/Admins human and have the ability to interpret things differently? Yes.

I am all for clear titles. I actually agree with Buford that some people have caused too much confusion with their thread titles, it czn be misleading and a waste of everyone's time.

Think of each thread as a file, wheen you click on a thread, you expect the name to be appropiate with the material inside the thread, so you open and download this 'file' from Geoff's server, and then sometimes you'd find that it wasn't about what you thought it'd be, its kind of deceiving people in a way. :)

But opening a file that didn't interest you, you had just wasted a few minutes of your valuable time, your computer's resources, and Geoff's servers. But the point of a title is to give a brief summary of the thread. If the subject line was clear, people wouldn't open and read the thread, its kind of like a warning. :D

:wave:

Just to be clear, "more lax" is not the same as exempt from. Moreover, using merged threads as an example is just not a good example. The moderators in Other have a long and pretty consistent history of merging/closing duplicate threads and so it's a question of which came first, not who had the more accurate title description.

Also, on the general application of forum rules (and I should have said this earlier if I didn't) any opinion I give is usually secondary to the opinion of the moderator(s) working the forum in question. They are going to have a much better handle on what the majority of that forum's members will want and what works for the forum they moderate.