in reply to Regarding the recent node retitling sentiments

Those who rewrite titles are no better at it.

I think this is a much more convincing argument than the one sauoq made (no offense intended to sauoq, but while I agreed with his conclusion too, I found his reasoning pretty unconvincing). I almost always vote to keep node titles, because I rarely see a recommended retitling that strikes me as obviously better. ++ for putting the idea into a nice little phrase like this.

  • Comment on Re: Regarding the recent node retitling sentiments

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Regarding the recent node retitling sentiments
by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Nov 05, 2005 at 00:24 UTC

    Exactly – I frequently find myself casting “keep” on considerations where I agree that the node could do with a better title, because the proposed new title is rather underwhelming.

    Makeshifts last the longest.

      This is what I do too. My biggest gripe with that situation is that you can't suggest a "better" title if the node is already under consideration - the best you can do is wait for the node to become unconsidered and re-consider, which I think is just a waste of moderation time and probably not the best way to handle this kind of thing.

      I think that some way of suggesting and voting on alternative titles might help alleviate this problem somewhat. I don't know how effective it would be or how much work it would be to implement it and I'm not in pmdev anyway, so I can't make any assessment on whether it would be worth implementing that.

      On the other hand, IMHO most posts with bad titles aren't worth the effort of retitleing. :-)

Re^2: Regarding the recent node retitling sentiments
by ambrus (Abbot) on Nov 05, 2005 at 15:24 UTC

    Seconded.