in reply to Q re nodes' subjects

More clearly: I would never ever even think of creating a new discussion ... with a node called 'details'. But ... it's obvious that I'm talking about details regarding 'Interesting technique to do xyz'!
Note: Please forgive the following rant:

With all due respect, your premise is faulty because it presumes that the reader is always going to view a node in the exact same context that you expect them to. This is just plain wrong, and it's a pervasive misconception that is all the more *annoying*, when it comes from experienced and intelligent people who should know better.

For example, suppose your details are so insightful and noteworthy that I decide to save or print your node separately on my own computer? Sure it's easy enough for me to save the entire thread so I don't lose the context, but why should I have to?

Saving the entire thread is not always a good option anyway, since "readmore" tags may obscure the content that I specifically found useful in your node. The result is I have to save both the inidvidual page of your content, along with enough of the thread so I have a complete picture, when it would have been simpler for you to just leave the subject line intact with the word "details" added on.

It's bad enough when people *intentionally* add barriers to information to make it harder to repurpose (e.g., copy protection, byzantine file formats, spurious and trifling intellectual property claims, exhorbitant access fees, etc etc etc ... ) ... why *add* to the complexity and burden for others just because of what you or I may think should be *obvious*?

If you're speaking to a global audience that ranges the complete spectrum of experience, education, culture, and technical proficiency; with devices and platforms that some of us do not even realize exist, then *nothing* should be assumed as "obvious".

No, it's not the most urgent issue in the world, but this kind of tunnel-vision-thinking adds up to make *so many* things a lot harder then they have to be.