http://qs1969.pair.com?node_id=433461


in reply to Re: Appealing a consideration?
in thread Appealing a consideration?

Retitling is a community process, people vote on the consideration. so normally there is a good reason to do it, and if not, itīs not likely to happen.
I've been watching the consideration process lately, and I don't think I'm alone (Don't Retitle This Node) in thinking that retitling happens too often. Search is often given as the answer for why retitling is done, but I find those arguments weak. If a monk thinks a title could be worded better, he has the option of replying to the OP with the better title for his own sub-node (instead of the default "Re^11: blah blah"). In fact everyone who so desires can do this, resulting in a cornucopia of titles for Seekers of Wisdom to search for. Another reason given for node retitling, is that one word titles screw up searching. But this leads me to believe that search in the Monastery is broken, not one word node titles. Of course, this is all premised on the belief that newbs spend their time searching the archives before posting (something which also seems disputable).
Before retitling you normally get a message from a janitor that tells you what is going to happen. You then have to chance to argue against it.
Hmm. I didn't seem to get a msg from a janitor. Do I then merely have to convice this person, or every janitor?
May I ask what the original and the new title of the node was?
Buried 11 levels deep, You can use HaXml for munging XML in Haskell is the node in question.

-- All code is 100% tested and functional unless otherwise noted.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Appealing a consideration?
by davido (Cardinal) on Feb 22, 2005 at 19:32 UTC

    From what I can tell, castaway followed protocol with regards to You can use HaXml for munging XML in Haskell. The node fell short of meeting the common sense and practical requirements of an effective node title: Single-word node titles wrek havoc with the 'Search' box at the top of your Monastery screen. So people frequently consider such titles for improvement.

    The vote probably went to the affirmitive (though I didn't witness that part). castaway then edited the title to the more sensible "You can use HaXml for munging XML in Haskell", and added proper attribution: "20050219 Edit by castaway: Changed title from 'HaXml'".

    You then removed the Janitor's attribution, put the title back to how it was originally, and posted this complaint.

    Did you ask castaway or any of the Janitors why your single-word title might have been considered for alteration? What was the outcome of that conversation?


    Dave

[reply]
      Single-word node titles wrek havoc with the 'Search' box at the top of your Monastery screen.

      I really don't get it with this meme. For example, search for "Perl/Tk question" in the search bar. There are two nodes with that title, and you get a page that says "Duplicates Found"... and all the nodes with said titles... are listed! Fancy that! Praise the technology!

      The only problem I am aware of is intrasite linking, however, I think that most people use the [id://nnnnn] form of linking. And that is good. Simply because it just might be that the title may very well change and then your link is in limbo.

      It is very, very rare to have a node change its node_id and even then, AFAICR, it has only happened to strangedocs and superdocs or other such beasties. Certainly nothing a mere mortal could produce. So you don't want to link with [blah blah blah] because the resulting link is much more likely to rot over time.

      I think that the real solution is to stop freaking out about single-node titles, and rather teach the searchers the asdfasdf trick. That is much more useful. For instance, if you search for grinder in the search field, you hit my home page. But what if you have a dim memory of an obfu that someone posted way back when, and had grinder in the title? In that case, the search bar isn't going to help you, and you are going to have to burn cycles over at super search.

      But there is a lightweight solution, just add some chaff to the the seach term, e.g. grinder asdfasdf and you get a different set of results... along with the one you were looking for. Notwithstanding any eventual corrections tye will make on subtleties I've misssed, single word titles are not bad; they do not wreak havoc with searches.

      And if anyone puts either of those Perl/TK questions up for consideration, do me a favour and vote Keep, ok?

      - another intruder with the mooring in the heart of the Perl

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

        Another point of view might be that a list of single word titles as search results is useless. Then new more verbose title is quite informative all by itself as a search result. Also single word titles are more likely to duplicate than multiword titles. Also if it is a single word "Haxml" and somebody searches for it then they get directed immediatly to this Haxml node instead of being given a list of nodes related to Haxml. Is this broken behavior? Maybe. I think the advantage of discriptive titles and better searching is far more important than single word subject lines. Then agian thats just my view, although it looks like its a majority view since these changes keep getting voted through.


        ___________
        Eric Hodges
[reply]
        A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

In Section Perl Monks Discussion