in reply to Re: Consider this: What makes a good node title?
in thread Consider this: What makes a good node title?
Objectively, the title "program line" is ambiguous in the extreme.
No, it isn't. "Weird Problem" certainly would be as both of those two words are totally abstract. "Program line", on the other hand, contains two concrete words. It isn't a complete description of the problem... but then, it doesn't really need to be in order to be useful.
Your suggestion that anyone who claims a title is unclear is obviously making this claim based solely on some touchy-feely subjective personal experience is either deliberately obtuse or just plain poorly thought through; in either case, from a linguistics standpoint, it's plain wrong.
You just aren't wrapping your head around the problem domain. I'd agree that the new title is better when held up against an ideal as might be defined linguistically. That's just not the point. Like I asked jeffa, should we name every node that deals with the same question the same thing? We could pick a really good node title for, say, "How do I initialize an hash?" Then, whenever someone asks, we can just retitle his node with that. Would that work well? Why not?
Your comments would be relevant to questions in the Questions and Answers section, certainly. That's one place where good titles (using that sort of ideal) are a requirement. But it's not a requirement for Seekers of Perl Wisdom and, in fact, it would be counterproductive.
No amount of irrelevant "I think, you think, works for me, works for you" subjectivist drivel will change that.
It's "works for somebody, works for everybody" that matters. And that's not irrelevant. Maximizing (simple) search coverage is the issue and that'll be done best if we leave node titles alone.
Now, before you go calling me "obtuse" again... why don't you give me the benefit of the doubt and actually think about the issues I'm raising rather than go off on another half-baked tangent?
"My two cents aren't worth a dime.";