Let's have informative headlines
A reader emailed me this, and it makes sense:
----------
The headlines [on MGoBoard]are a bit under-informing. I guess under-informing might not be the right phrase. More angst-inducing. Each time there is a [insert player/recruit/coach's name] post there's a few seconds of oh-great-what-happened-now uncertainty.
Could you institute some sort of Generally Accepted Blogboard Practices (GABP)? A way to categorize each post with a simple but clear symbol. Like off topic posts are currently prefaced with OT. Whether its user inserted or a dropdown box on the posting page. Perhaps something close to the following:
! = good news
? = question
~ = rumor/unconfirmed
- = negative news
k = The Knowledge might as well have posted this. Don't take it seriously.
-------------
A technical solution seems like overkill, but I'd support more informative thread titles since there's nothing I hate more than that moment of terror when someone posts a thread title like "Tate Forcier"; first and foremost I'd make the thread title more informative, like "Tate Forcier is awesome" or "Tate Forcier decommits, everyone commit suicide now." If you don't want to do that, you could use the symbology proposed. Because what does a community need more than weird jargon? Nothin'.
January 11th, 2009 at 2:05 AM ^
t = I'm a stupid troll please kill me nao.
January 11th, 2009 at 2:13 AM ^
that will take care of at least 10%
January 11th, 2009 at 2:55 AM ^
Regarding the headlines of forum posts, they are actually more informative than the blog postings made by Brian. That does not stop the content of his postings from being great though.
January 11th, 2009 at 10:31 AM ^
Regardless of whether that is true or not (re: the informativeness of Brian's headlines) that is not a remotely valid comparison. With Brian's headlines you just need to continue to scroll your browser down to read the content, whereas with the other headlines you have to click a link; thus the moment of panic that Brian cites. Not that it takes a lot of time to make that click, but it's a waste of time when posters could simply be more considerate with their selection of thread titles.
January 11th, 2009 at 7:56 AM ^
Good concept but I think we need top work on the - vs - to differentiate the negative vs rumor.. it's like I'm listening to Rome...."it's not Ryan it's Rhine"
January 11th, 2009 at 10:14 AM ^
Jay's headlines should be started with a ":(".
January 11th, 2009 at 4:10 PM ^
I don't know, is it really that hard to click the link and read it?
January 11th, 2009 at 6:38 PM ^
No, it's not. But at the same time is it really that hard to make a headline that is representative of the content of the thread?
January 11th, 2009 at 9:18 PM ^
Touché.
January 11th, 2009 at 6:59 PM ^
Aside from headlines that are really misleading or incendiary, this just seems like something to cater to eggshell sensibilities.
January 11th, 2009 at 7:19 PM ^
However, I'm much less likely to read threads with classic titles like:
Any news?
Hey Scum
Hot Dang
Win-Win
Positive
YES
What the Fuck.
WOW
Is it too much to ask for to have some idea of the topic?
January 11th, 2009 at 8:08 PM ^
The eggshell sensibilities comment is based on the initial complaint about uninformative titles being "angst-inducing." In all seriousness, if a thread is entitled "Tate Forcier" the only thing the title conveys is that the post will have something to do with Tate Forcier. If someone wants to jump to a negative conclusion that it could be about Tate Forcier decommitting, the resulting momentary angst (and really, we are talking about momentary angst at most) is on the reader, not the writer.
I agree with you that it is not too much to ask to ask the writer to be more informative with the titles. But by the same token, I agree with Chrisgo, in that it is not too much to ask the reader to simply click a link. The whole issue is simply a trivial matter, that I am fine with the status quo and the reasons for change are unconvincing.
January 12th, 2009 at 12:41 AM ^
Torts class?
January 12th, 2009 at 12:53 AM ^
Politics.
January 12th, 2009 at 1:10 AM ^
of me throwing in some cheesy law jokes. Consider yourself lucky.
January 12th, 2009 at 1:13 AM ^
Chances are, I've probably heard them anyway.
January 12th, 2009 at 8:17 AM ^
Plus, then we wouldn't have to decide which 'Tate Forcier' (or insert random recruit name) post we were looking for.
January 12th, 2009 at 9:23 AM ^
with question marks, so I've been using the system without even trying! This is awesome.
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/netiquettenazi.htm
When you click a post and or read a title and it does not meet your expectations or the title is not informative enough for you that is your problem the forum members.
Why not create several different forums within the board... like one section for Football Recruiting, another for Basketball.. another for all the OT stuff. I mean the TomVH tab was probably one of my favorite additions to this site just so I don't have to sit and read all the useless banter followed by WLA making fun of said useless banter (no offense I usually find this comical.. but it inherently leads to more useless banter). Asking people to put symbols in front of their posts will work for ... well some people, but there are always going to be trolls or just general idiots not able to comprehend the simplest of things. Hell, give some of the mature experienced posters the ability to moderate the boards while you're at it. Sorry if this has all been suggested beforehand on the board by somebody, but I usually find myself reading only Brian, TomVH, and Jamiemac's posts while occasionally searching to see if gsimmons has posted something that expands my football expertise.