11337845 (banned)Live free or die join:2002-12-20 Seattle, WA |
11337845 (banned)
Member
2005-Jan-8 9:52 am
[request] Increase topic title lengthWould it be possible to increase the allowable topic title length? 40 characters is somewhat restrictive and I've often run into problems trying to make a title that fits.
Could it be increased to 60-70 characters? |
|
drakeBack to back MVM join:2002-06-10 Bridgeport, CT |
drake
MVM
2005-Jan-8 10:19 am
Re: Increase topic title length**object** The current limit is sufficient enough. Just make the title shorter. It's that simple. The most important message is in the actual post itself. |
|
|
11337845 (banned)Live free or die join:2002-12-20 Seattle, WA |
11337845 (banned)
Member
2005-Jan-8 10:26 am
And sometimes it's hard to convey the gist of the content of the post with 40 characters. It happens to me a lot.
Besides, you say it's sufficient but give no reason as to why 60 or 70 would be overkill or would cause any problem that would make its implementation detrimental.
If there's a downside to doing this, I'm all ears.:) |
|
PacratOld and Cranky MVM join:2001-03-10 Cortland, OH
1 recommendation |
to 11337845
Think of the thread title as a newspaper headline... it's not necessary to explain the content of the posting... it's just to catch the reader's attention. Forty characters is more than enough to do that. In printer's parlance, that's eight words. Psst! C'mere! Check this out!
I really don't think we need long, explanatory titles like: Dr. Stangelove, or How I quit worrying and learned to love the bomb!"
*object* - unnecessary overkill |
|
drakeBack to back MVM join:2002-06-10 Bridgeport, CT |
drake
MVM
2005-Jan-8 11:00 am
Pacrat pretty much took the words out of my mouth ... |
|
11337845 (banned)Live free or die join:2002-12-20 Seattle, WA |
11337845 (banned)
Member
2005-Jan-8 11:03 am
said by drake:Pacrat pretty much took the words out of my mouth ... And yet neither of you gave an explanation of how it would be harmful.... I don't know how the limit was set. I haven't been here since day 1. I don't know if Justin has some sort of super-human logic behind it that defies understanding by us mere mortals. However, you guys just seem to be against any change to this site that doesn't benefit you. It strikes me that you assess my suggestion by determining if it will make your experience better. |
|
C_9084Kill The Socialists Premium Member join:2001-03-19 |
to 11337845
*object* |
|
SpensergigPast my Prime MVM join:2000-03-26 Bradenton, FL |
to 11337845
said by 11337845: And yet neither of you gave an explanation of how it would be harmful.... Actually, Pacrat gave you a specific explanation of his vote, "*object* - unnecessary overkill", which is more than is required. Neither one said that the idea was harmful, just not needed. said by 11337845:However, you guys just seem to be against any change to this site that doesn't benefit you. It strikes me that you assess my suggestion by determining if it will make your experience better. Please tell me you are kidding. Why would anyone vote for something that doesn't make their experience better? |
|
11337845 (banned)Live free or die join:2002-12-20 Seattle, WA |
11337845 (banned)
Member
2005-Jan-8 11:17 am
said by Spensergig:said by 11337845: And yet neither of you gave an explanation of how it would be harmful.... Actually, Pacrat gave you a specific explanation of his vote, "*object* - unnecessary overkill", which is more than is required. Neither one said that the idea was harmful, just not needed. Not needed for them. That doesn't make it a bad idea, or an unworkable one. I don't see any reason to object solely on the basis that they don't need or want it. said by 11337845:However, you guys just seem to be against any change to this site that doesn't benefit you. It strikes me that you assess my suggestion by determining if it will make your experience better. Please tell me you are kidding. Why would anyone vote for something that doesn't make their experience better? Why would anyone vote against something that doesn't negatively impact them? It wouldn't be the end of the world and I know I'm not the only one that would appreciate it. Perhaps my perception of how people should sign/object to things around here is skewed, but it seems like a lot of people object because they don't have a personal need for it. I feel someone should object when they have a strong reason against it, not because the current way is "good enough" for them. |
|
|
to 11337845
**Object**
A title is to be used to convey the Subject matter, the post to convey the thought on the subject itself.
As a side note, I also would hazard a guess that character length in the title would affect page layout. |
|
11337845 (banned)Live free or die join:2002-12-20 Seattle, WA |
11337845 (banned)
Member
2005-Jan-8 11:21 am
said by MSeng:I also would hazard a guess that character length in the title would affect page layout. Not unless some jerkface decided to post a topic title sans spaces. Of course, that's easy to detect and eliminate. |
|
fatnesssubtle
join:2000-11-17 fishing
2 recommendations |
to 11337845
I have yet to see a topic where a short, descriptive title could not be done in 40 characters or less. Maybe there are a few, but the long titles ones I've seen that trail off into nothing could have been worded more briefly without losing reader interest.
"Windows98se Registry Corruption Problem When Using scanregw in DOS Screen" cand just as easily be "Win98se Registry Corruption Problem" for example
If there was a frequent, recurring need I'd be in favor. I don't think such a need exists, and based on that I *object* |
|
11337845 (banned)Live free or die join:2002-12-20 Seattle, WA |
11337845 (banned)
Member
2005-Jan-8 12:05 pm
It was more for the social forums rather than the technical ones. It's hard to explain my POV. I don't click on every single topic and read it. If the title catches my eye or seems like it'll interest me, then I will. A lot of times, I'd like to make a catchier title so more people click and join the discussion.
Meh. |
|
Hawk Premium Member join:2003-08-25 |
to 11337845
As it stands, the current length attempts to force one to keep the title short, sweet and in-line with the subject matter. This makes it easier for the rest of us when quick scanning topics for a subject on the run. I prefer it this way and respectfully *object* |
|
|
to 11337845
*sign* we need more things that could mess up the margins. |
|
keith2468 Premium Member join:2001-02-03 Winnipeg, MB |
to 11337845
*sign*
As people get bigger monitors, and resolutions increase, wider subject lines become possible. |
|
statestress magnet Mod join:2002-02-08 Purgatory |
to fatness
said by fatness:"Windows98se Registry Corruption Problem When Using scanregw in DOS Screen" can just as easily be "Win98se Registry Corruption Problem" for example Excellent example. Additional details can be provided within the post, not necessary to post them (IMO) in the title. Respectfully object. |
|
splix Premium Member join:2002-02-19 Oakton, VA |
to 11337845
*neutral* I can see why there could be a need for it, but I really don't think it's necessary. You don't have to have titles like: "I buying a new computer and I need help to pick out a CPU and motherboard" When you could just have: "Buying new PC / Need advice on CPU/Mobo" |
|
BlitzenZeusBurnt Out Cynic Premium Member join:2000-01-13 1 edit |
to 11337845
Learn to paraphrase more 40 characters is usually enough, and long titles already blowout the margins already.
*Object* |
|
mers2 Premium Member join:2004-03-20 USA |
to 11337845
*OBJECT* 40 characters is sufficient for a title. Save the details for the post. |
|
Jehu Premium Member join:2002-09-13 MA |
to 11337845
*object* For reasons state above. |
|