Lately, I've noticed that there are lots of nodes being posted with titles like "How many?", "strange behaviour" and "HELP ME PLEASE!!!" which says nothing about what the node is about, and rather will steer at least me away from the node rather than finding out what it is about - potentially missing what could really be an interesting node.

Consequently, Nodes To Consider is also filling up with lots of requests for editing that really didn't need to be there. It also makes future searches much more awkvard, if they would be left as-is.

I realize that many new posters, especially those not accustomed to places like these doesn't think that way, many general discussion forums have that kind of titles more as a rule than an exception.

So I propose that we put some instruction to put a good, describing title on the posted nodes somewhere at the submission textarea - either among the other good advices, or - preferably - a short note next to the title field. I was pondering whether to disallow node titles with less than three words as well, to provide for better diversity, but that might be going too far? I think it could have a place in certain sections like SOPW, but maybe should not apply to Obfuscations for instance. :)

While I am at it, maybe add a mention of <readmore>, and why/when, in the paragraph about <code> tags.

Update: Something else that might help: if a node is considered, maybe that should be displayed somewhere, not just in the approval nodelet? Maybe not to everyone, but to the owner (and everyone if it is an AnonyMonk). That might help with understanding for the future - as one can usually expect that the owner that posts seriously will look at his own node a couple of times. :)

On a side note: what is the process of becoming an editor? I often see minor edits that are just sitting there for a long time, and I sometimes itch to help out with them myself. :) I think it is because I have a different time zone than many editors, so that is why I have to wait. :) Anyhow, if you want more hands helping, I am interested.

Thanks.

You have moved into a dark place.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Add instruction to use a "good description title"?
by VSarkiss (Monsignor) on Apr 23, 2002 at 20:13 UTC

    I hate to sound defeatist, but I don't adding instructions will help. There's already lots of good documentation around: I want to ask a question of the Perl Monks; where do I start?, How to RTFM, Writeup Formatting Tips, and many others, all conveniently gathered up in the Site How To and the Perl Monks FAQ. And you can find them from the search box on every page. There's even hints when you're about to submit something.

    It doesn't help. People don't read them. "Put a reasonable subject line" is something that's repeated in mailing lists, in newsgroups, and just about everywhere else that people communicate in writing. Nonetheless, you get titles like "Perl question", "What am I doing wrong?", "Help me please" and other completely unhelpful titles.

    I think the only thing you can do is hire more janitors, and I applaud you for wanting to help. Let me know when you find out, and I'll lend a hand too.

[reply]
      I've found this problem with websites I've developed. Some people just seem to have trouble finding things and it is pretty hard to navigate around perlmonks. For instance to find the two links you've suggested I'd have to look on the right underneath the chatterbox, other users, and sections to find the information nodelet. That's a long scroll down and to the right on my browser.

      My suggestion would be to remove some of the links at the top and make sure these two are more obvious.

      The other problem is that if a newbie comes here and searches for 'cgi' they'll get the manpage for CGI.pm and if they type 'cgi help' they'll find nothing. Then they'll probably go and ask something that has been asked 1000 times before.

      Update: I was thinking that it would be pretty cool if on the preview page it listed nodes that had similar names to yours above the textbox. This would be a cunning way of getting people to search without them knowing it.

      I've also found the javascript/dhtml menu thingies to be an excellent way of flattening site structure and squeezing more links into what is already crowded real-estate.

      gav^

[reply]
        It has been suggested before that new posts be pushed through a search. Which is not entirely what you are suggesting with your update, but more or less. Likewise, have you tried doing a search for some some common but not so generic terms? You get an awful lot back. What would happen with these meaningless titles? It would bog down the server, and they would likeyl scroll right past them. You could certainly crop the list, but how do you know you aren't throwing away the one relevant node.

        Helas I have no easy solution. It boils down to the fact that it takes some general web cluefulness to use this site effectively.

        However as far as rearranging goes I think something like might make things easier for newbies, and cleaner for all. 

        Search box...............................
Library * Perl FAQ * Q&A * Tutorials * Site FAQ * logout<br>
SoPW * CUFP...

Node heading...

        [download]
        Basically try to keep all the help links together, hopefully on one-line (800x600 12 pt.). Making the Information nodelet obsolete, all other topics (Voting, etc.) need only be accessible from Site FAQ.

        --
        perl -pew "s/\b;([mnst])/'$1/g"

[reply]
[d/l]
Re: Add instruction to use a "good description title"?
by cjf (Parson) on Apr 24, 2002 at 06:37 UTC

    Okay, simple solution to all these "please add ____ to the site docs" nodes that are being posted lately.

    When anyone who is level 3 or under (including Anonymous Monks) goes to post a node they'll be shown a checklist of common problems, make them check each off before they post. Keep them short so people will actually read them. This way if people still post nodes with meaningless titles and without using <code> tags, at least they'll know that doing so is frowned upon.

    The End.

[reply]
[d/l]
Re: Add instruction to use a "good description title"?
by BUU (Prior) on Apr 23, 2002 at 20:12 UTC
    While you definately have good points about titles, and descriptive titles are clearly a "Good Thing(tm)", i would like to point out that on every single messageboard type system, the group that really needs to listen to this (aka newbs..) never does. No matter how many 'Please post legible titles..' you still get lots. But hey, maybe thats just my pessimism..
[reply]
      This is definitely an area where help is needed, and you can't hope for the newbies to help themselves here. So how about a generic "keywords" attachment to each posting label (which will sometimes be helpful even when higher-ups are posting).

      For example, when a posting is submitted, the process that formats the posting title could take the time to scan the text and see what sorts of familiar terms are in there (CGI, DBI, ODBC, regex or "regular expression", etc) -- and even rank these by frequency -- pick about three of these and include them automatically as part of the title.

      The really clueless posters might miss all the important terms, but if they look at the "keyword" portion of other postings, and see that their own post has none, they might figure it out.

      The title could even contain a little flag to indicate whether the posting contains any <code>, if that seems important.

[reply]
      I have a suggestion.

      You could write a function to measure the descriptiveness of the title, and if it falls below some threshold prevent the message getting posted. Then the user will be forced to post a more descriptive title.

      Obviously "descriptiveness" is a fairly subjective measure, but it should be possible to automate it to find the worst offenders. e.g.: 

      if (word_count($title) <= 3) {
  print "You cannot post this until you put in a more descriptive titl
+e."
  ...
}

      [download]
      The implemetation of a more sophisticated function "measure_descriptiveness()" could be left as an exercise for perl monks...
[reply]
[d/l]
Re: Add instruction to use a "good description title"?
by cajun (Chaplain) on Apr 23, 2002 at 23:22 UTC
    You have a very good point, however, as others have pointed out this is well documented on the site already.

    I think there are a fair number of questions posted by a new perl user that is stuck on a problem and is seeking help to work around the problem. (Hence, the "Help me please" postings). I think in this case, they are more interested in getting by their immediate issues than with posting using the proper protocol. It would be interesting to know how many users came to and joined the site, under precisely these circumstances.

[reply]
      (This answer directed also at other answers above :) )

      Interesting that so many think that because it is documented on the site, another line of instructions won't help.

      Well I think it will. It will be another kind of instruction. Like you said, lots of newbies (at this site at least) probably want a fast answer to their question, and will not read all the (sometimes hard to find) documentation. Heck, I still have a hard time finding certain pieces of information, how can I expect a new guy to do it? Not that I'm very old here, but anyways.

      If you were a newbie, and you needed an answer fast, and this text was next to (or right under) the title textfield: "Try to briefly describe your question here. Doing so greatly increases the chance of getting a reply." - possibly even add some no-no examples. What would you do if you wanted an answer?

      Ok, so some guys will and do ignore any and all instruction, that is a law of nature. But say that there are 20 posts every day that needs editing, if that is cut into half, that is a huge win imho. Less strain on editors, better outlook of nodes from the start, and less confused newbies that gets unnecessary downvotes or can't find their renamed node.

      Above all, I can't for my life figure out why you think it is a bad(?) idea to try it. It is about adding a simple sentence to the HTML. Many small changes can have lots bigger impact than a few big, right?

      You have moved into a dark place.
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
[reply]
Re: Add instruction to use a "good description title"?
by snafu (Chaplain) on Apr 24, 2002 at 13:50 UTC
    I have two-cents(tm) I'd like to give this write-up.

    First, I would like to say that the point brought up is a good one. However, I'd like to play the devils advocate.

    While the idea is to encourage folks to use titles that are descriptive and meaningful, newbies, which I believe we are all in agreement are widely accepted as the culprits, although they are not entirely the cause of the whole problem, will still not be able to *because* most of the time newbies don't know the Perl or even the Programming buzzwords to make a good title. Therefore, if a newbie who doesn't know the buzzwords attempts to create a good title what that newbie ends up doing is creating a quite loooong title trying to describe his/her problem the best he/she can. AFAIK, loooong titles are also discouraged. Therefore, our friend, the newbie, has just been snagged by a catch-22.

    I have no easy solution to this as no one or no group of people can ensure that our friend, the newbie, will know HOW to describe his/her problem which I sincerely believe is the cause of a lot of bad titles. Btw, I agree that not all posts nor all newbies plagued with this catch-22. However, I think that a great many of them do get snagged by this situation.

    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    - Jim
    Insert clever comment here...

[reply]

Back to Perl Monks Discussion