What is this thread about?; Or, this thread is about how to title your threads

Since threads no longer seem to be closed on the grounds they have grown too large to be manageable, I think very generalized titles are the way to go. The more vague the headline/title/topic the fewer recriminations about any individual poster being off-topic.  I am tempted to start a new thread. "Everything".

I fully agree. I don't even look at most of these generic threads, and I'm sure I'm missing important discussions - which, moreover, tend to get aborted instead of focused as they sometimes deserve because some other part of the catchall comes up.

On the other hand, some threads look deceptively specific:

[url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/latest-polling-thread-5-july-2... polling thread - 5 july, 2012[/url]

... until you realize they have attracted 1,461 posts to date.

A thread called "Thomas Mulcair" is particularly silly. I wonder if 1/4 of the posts relate to Mulcair, as opposed to the NDP generally, or the Senate scandal, or (as many posts in recent days) the Green Party...

Not closing threads is one thing. Not opening new ones was never the intent.

Oh good..... then there's no problem if I title my next five threads "Hey Look at This!!", just because there's no way anyone is going to tell me what to do.

I don't know about a secret scheme to generate hits and revenue, but I can think of a couple of other things moderators' advice can be counted on generating.

Catchfire wrote:

quizzical wrote:

i think discussions here are pretty high level in most cases at least to me and i don't doubt rabble is exploting travellers to babble and the blogs to get traffic and funds to operate too....

That is so far away from my motivations here I don't even know where to start with this insinuation. But I think you overestimate how much babble does to drive site traffic or funding.

ah...it wasn't meant as an insinuation or even a critical observation. just an observation of how  websites get advertisers or web sites are valued and how it's through traffic to the site.

over estimination? why would rabble continue babble and pay mods if it didn't generate traffic for the whole web site? and the same for having the blogs. it's pure business.

it's just seemed weird your asking for specific topic titles.  a bunch of threads were just closed for "repetition" even though all titled differently and were about different things though in a broad sense could've gone in a general thread like was suggested when thread was closed. it's kinda mixed messaging i think.

NorthReport wrote:

Bingo!

Catchfire, on most things you make sense, but maybe you need a vacation here, or at least some time in the penalty box.

Take your personal attacks somewhere else, far away. What the hell do you think you're doing? Catchfire stole your wallet? He assaulted you? Just fucking apologize.

Agreed.

NorthReport wrote:

A good example is the Quebec section where we have a thread about one poll instead of a polling thread. 

There is a lack of consistency here.

DaveW wrote:

As the one who started both threads, let me say, a poll back on Labour Day had ceased to be news or a worthy basis for a discussion at New Year's. Period.

And with the Babble way of displaying posts by oldest first, you have to start going through 10 pages to get to the most recent post, so I think: let's start fresh.

Otherwise, you have some gigantic bulky set of posts covering years and years. What is the point?

I've supported Catchfire's plea in the past and I do so again.

Threads like "Thomas Mulcair" (2000 posts? really? and how many are about Thomas Mulcair??) and "Liberal Party of Canada" are ridiculous as discussion forums. We ended up almost discussing today's Trudeau Senate gambit in both threads - because really, anything will fit there.

Another ridiculous kind (IMHO) is "Why the NDP is right to want to abolish the Senate". Gimme a break. How about "Senate abolition", or, if we think it's an important enough topic on its own, "NDP position on Senate abolition"? Today's gambit obviously didn't fit into the only active thread we have about the Senate, because of it's silly title.

I was about to open a thread just dealing with Trudeau's new move and how it unfolds, how others react, etc., when I was happy to see that CF did.

I'm starting to miss the pre-upgrade days. Threads were mercilessly closed after an arbitrary 100 posts - but then, if the specific issue was still hot, someone would open part 2. The only real improvement that was needed was for the mod to automatically open the next part and link to it in the final post, just to make life easier.

There will never be perfection in thread-naming. But we can do better than the "catchall" which, as CF correctly notes, is a brand-new phenomenon.

I always fought against closing at 100 because I thought it was an arbitrary number that often cut off discussion just as it was starting. I am certainly not a fan of threads that go on for thousands of posts. Maybe threads should be closed at some number like 250 or 500. I know thw longer the thread the less likely I am to contibute to it.

SJ, I enjoy your Anarchy 101 thread. 

"Death watch" threads?  Seriously?  I thought the "don't underestimate..." nonsense was bad enough.  Melodramatic and just...  Ick.  Especially in regard to refugee crises.

I also thanked Catchfire for changing the thread title.  Everyone is so upset over this one little 3 year old boy because of the adorable pictures of him but he is far from the first young child to die trying to escape Syria. Just this time there were pictures.

I saw a picture of a man who shoved his wife and child onto the ground to prevent police in Hungary from dragging them off. The baby in his wife's arms is probably under 3 months old. As I watched that I was coaxing a 1 month old premie in my arms to stay awake and drink more formula out of a sterilized bottle. I can't imagine being thrown to the ground with him in my arms, trying to escape police. In another shot of the refugees crowding onto a train they hope will carry them to Germany, a toddler was passed through a window to get him on the train that looked packed solid, standing room only.

In another shot of children being rescued on a beach they are wearing water wings and cheap "life" jackets made like beach balls. Yet even that paltry protection would have been priceless to the man who just lost his two boys and wife. 

Boats going down with people trapped within, people found dead packed in trucks like sardines.

The title may have been too ghoulish so I don't mind at all that it was changed, (I requested the change from migrant to refugee) but it was also accurate. This is quite literally a death watch. Dead people are washing up on shores. Every day I see shots of body bags being loaded or unloaded.

I'm not sure that babblers had the ability to edit their own thread titles back when this thread was posted. Nevertheless, I came here hoping to find some insight into whether the babble community and moderator feel like endless retitling of established threads is conducive to good discussions. My interest in that question was prompted by this thread, which I believe is presently on its fourth title in just over four weeks.

We are the kids of war and peace
From Anaheim Anne McGrath to the Middle East
- Green Day, "Jesus of Suburbia"

Thread drift doesn't bother me much, especially when it happens organically as part of an ongoing conversation. But to constantly change a thread's title to reflect wherever that drift happens to have taken us at any given moment is detrimental, IMO. It's unnecessarily confusing when a discussion you've been following seems to have vanished into thin air, only to later discover that it still exists under a wildly different title. Similarly, I've had the experience of trying to find something in my own post history, scrolling through the titles, and thinking; "that's weird... I don't remember ever seeing that thread, much less commenting in it", only to open it and find that I had in fact commented on it under a much different thread title.

How often does it happen that the thread title is wildly different? I changed my "Decline of the Conservatives days later to clarify by adding "Federal". Not a big reason to leave it alone if it is really causing problems. However, it would take up tech time so I don't think it will change any time soon. They probably don't have a checkbox for "just the first day". It's much more likely it's an on off switch so would require new code. 

Maybe not but my change would have been blocked as well. We wanted the ability to edit titles. We got it. 

I don't think there is a halfway solution like a box they can check to put a date limit on how long people can make changes, or a toggle that can be switched when the first response is made. They are using an out of the box solution. I doubt they have a programmer available that would delve into the code for that. 

I'm pretty sure our choices are edit or not. 

I never minder the odd request to alter a thread title.  I'm certain I've never refused. My only concern is if I'm looking for a thread and I can't find it because the name is too dissimilar.  Regarding comments above I don't really have a position about whether threads are very specific or really broad, like "wither the left in canada" (thither I should think.)  Just be clear in your head what you would like to see discussed, call it that in as few words as required and throw it to the winds.  Thread drift happens.

I appreciate hearing a mod's perspective, oldgoat.

I'm still puzzled as to why the title of a thread should go from Anne McGrath to the NDP to the Middle East in under a month. But I suppose at least part of me is curious to find out if given another week or two we'll eventually end up at Kevin Bacon.