Sometimes this is done. tilly did something similar in gethostbyaddr question. Originally, it was named gethostbyaddr, but that conflicted with the gethostbyaddr function and you could no longer go directly to the function description by typing the function name in the search box. I believe that there are several other nodes whose names conflict with functions. I suppose we should seek those out and fix them at some point. If anyone wants to /msg Ovid with those, I'll try to fix them, if appropriate.

I think your idea of renaming root nodes to more accurately reflect upon the poster's intent is good. However, I also know that some, if not most, of the editors tend to be reluctant to change a person's words. How do others feel about this? I, for one, really don't want to do that unless there's a consensus that this is a Good Thing.

In the gethostbyaddr question, though, even the new title is not accurately reflecting the poster's intent. The Anonymous Monk's title seemed to suggest that the poster thought that gethostbyaddr might be the issue, when the reality is the poster clearly realized that a print statement did not appear to do anything. In this case, however, it was not a print problem per se, but a buffer problem. The poster was not aware that /s?he/ needed to autoflush the filehandle. So what do we name the node: "gethostbyaddr question", "Print not working", "Filehandle not being Flushed"? Who chooses the name? For nodes that have a variety of problems contributing to the issue, what do we name the node then? I'm sure we can find a happy medium, but I'm cautious until I hear some feedback.

Cheers,
Ovid

Join the Perlmonks Setiathome Group or just click on the the link and check out our stats.

It's not a bad idea, but also seems like a fine line. I know some people choose their titles (and words) with some care. I would suggest that Friars and above nominate such nodes. That way, we'd get the consensus Ovid's looking for from those who participate in the moderation process.

Of course, it might also be a good idea to rename root nodes containing egregious spelling errors in their titles...strictly as an aid to searching, of course. ;-)

Remember, only you can prevent tpyos.

--f

I'd love to see nodes get nominated requesting that they get a more appropriate title...

HOWEVER, don't bother to nominate it unless you have come up with exactly what that better title is, you are confident that it is a much better title, and you include the title, verbatim, in the "reason for consideration" text. Please?

I've already seen a few Nodes to Consider with "needs a better title" as reason. I'm sorry, I'm one of the janitors, and we don't adjust content. We do mindless formatting repair. Please don't ask us to come up with the titles. (:

You have to realize that once you "consider" a node, noone else can do it. So your lousy new title is the only suggestion we'll see. So don't jump the gun unless the perfect new title occurs to you.

And then try not to get upset when one of the editors doesn't take your advice and uses a different title. /: I say this last bit for my other janitors sake. If you follow my advice, it is very unlikely that I won't like your title (I'm too lazy; in case you didn't catch that part yet), but I don't pretend to speak for the whole gang. :)

        - tye (but my friends call me "Tye")

This is a common enough problem. The only solution is continued vigilance and user education.

Now, in this case it's an AM, so one of the following doesn't apply.

Perhaps in the future, you could send the poster a /msg, or post a reply to his node to that effect?

The editors already manage this sort of thing on a regular basis, but we'd like to help them cut down on the amount of work they already do.