Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

10

ziq wrote

I don't think people should have to spend time trying to cut down article's titles to 8-10 words. It seems like a waste of brain power and would likely result in people contributing less. So I'm going to vote oppose.

2

hotcool wrote

Perhaps make a suggestion to keep it short on the submission page?

6

emma wrote (edited )

BORN TO DIE

WORLD IS A FUCK

鬼神 Kill Em All 1989

I am trash man

410,757,864,530 DEAD COPS

2

hotcool wrote (edited )

Isl of Barbuda Under Threat Of "Disaster Capitalism"

Next?

4

emma wrote (edited )

BORN TO DIE

WORLD IS A FUCK

鬼神 Kill Em All 1989

I am trash man

410,757,864,530 DEAD COPS

2

hotcool wrote (edited )

That's what the article is for, to fill in the rest of the information.

8

emma wrote (edited )

BORN TO DIE

WORLD IS A FUCK

鬼神 Kill Em All 1989

I am trash man

410,757,864,530 DEAD COPS

4

WindTalk wrote

I see downvote-disagree is popular here too. It seems on-topic to me.

I would suggest it be a per-forum setting, not site-wide.

3

Tequila_Wolf wrote

I don't mind having long ones - sometimes adding the subtitle for a piece to the title seems to make it get more readers, especially where the title doesn't really reflect much about the piece on its own.

4

ziq wrote

I notice that a lot too. Jacobin especially has awful headlines that say nothing about the article.

2

sudo wrote

This would make more sense as a guideline, instead of a hard rule. As the others have said, sometimes it's not possible to shrink a title down to 8 to 10 words. Usually news websites come up with short, comprehensive titles, but I can see this applying to self posts with verbose titles. If the title really is too long there, then someone could ask the OP to shorten their title. If we made it a hard rule, then I think it would cause more problems than it would solve.