|Just another Perl shrine|
Re^2: Consider this: What makes a good node title?by sauoq (Abbot)
|on Nov 03, 2005 at 23:43 UTC||Need Help??|
Don't they deserve to find this node as well?
Are you asking me if they deserve to be inundated with duplicate information? Or if they deserve to be treated to this particular cookie of a node?
What they deserve is to find their answer (no matter which words come to mind) and more people will if we tamper with titles less.
E.g. we'd have the "occurance" people sharing information, apart from the mainstream "occurrence" crowd, because they wouldn't find each other's nodes.
Sorry, but that's a ridiculously bizarre notion. I know how to spell "occurrence" correctly but I wouldn't hesitate for one second to reply to a node with "occurrance" in the title. I don't think anyone else here would either. (At least, not most.) But, if someone believes it's a good search term for their problem, they should have a reasonable chance of finding a relevant node by searching on it regardless of whether they misspell it.
the janitors are showing the OP, and others, what constitutes a good title for a given question.
Nobody's taking notes. In any case, all the janitors can show is what they believe to be a good node title. And that's not some special skill you go to school for... we all have concepts about what makes a node title good.
I know I am suggesting a way of thinking about titling that is a bit different. To sum it up, the pool of titles chosen by throngs of people in the spur of the moment will actually be higher quality than the pool of titles chosen by a small group of people removed from the issues and acting on preconceived notions about what a good title is.
-sauoq "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";