http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=505834


in reply to Re^2: Consider this: What makes a good node title?
in thread Consider this: What makes a good node title?

Let me qualify a bit what I said. I didn't really think it was unarguable, but I fell into the temptation of borrowing the wording from your original post. :-) Sorry about that.

I also guessed what the node might be about, so I'll agree that it wasn't impossibly obscure. But I found it a bit ambiguous, and subject to improvement.

The fact that I think it is a poor node title doesn't indicate an absolute quality about the title? Of course, I agree with that. That's exactly why we can vote on considerations: if enough people vote to "keep" the original title, it doesn't need to be changed. That way several viewpoints are taken into account.

  • Comment on Re^3: Consider this: What makes a good node title?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Consider this: What makes a good node title?
by sauoq (Abbot) on Nov 04, 2005 at 19:01 UTC
    That's exactly why we can vote on considerations: if enough people vote to "keep" the original title, it doesn't need to be changed.

    True. And really, those are exactly the people whom I am addressing with this post. Many considerations are voted on without... well... without a whole lot of consideration. In the end, I'm just trying to raise consciousness about it. I think that, the more thought people put into it, the less enthusiastic they will be about retitling. And, I believe that's a good thing (after having put in quite a bit of thought on the subject myself.)

    -sauoq
    "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";