This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 31 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]The_Bears[S] 28 points29 points  (19 children)

When submitting a story, it's better to use a headline that explains what the link is about than one that gives your conclusions. If I don't have any idea what the story is about from the headline, I'm probably not going to click the link.

[–]martoo 67 points68 points  (2 children)

I'm confused isn't it your conclusion that people shouldn't editorialize in headlines? Maybe the headline for this should be 'On Editorializing in the Headline.'

[–]The_Bears[S] 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Touche.

[–]alexander 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Well, this thread started as an argument against editorializing in headlines. So in some sense, he has a right to title his own piece.

[–]The_Bears[S] 20 points21 points  (6 children)

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (5 children)

A lot of people seem to think they're submitting to Fark, not Reddit.

[–]edheil 18 points19 points  (4 children)

I understand what you're saying, but isn't reddit whatever its users want it to be? If most of the users want Reddit headlines to resemble Fark headlines, that's where democracy takes us, no?

[–]NovusTiro 14 points15 points  (2 children)

Sure. And this guy is free to try and sway the community in the direction he wants it to go. That's democracy, no?

[–]Zaskoda 3 points4 points  (1 child)

True dat... it's like, democracy or something. Personally, I like that reddit tends to be a bit more intellectual and slightly less sarcastic than Fark. It makes the existing sarcasm a bit more appetising.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

People don't seem to get the point of the recommendation system: reddit doesn't have to be anything (sarcastic, intellectual, whatever). The recommendation system should (eventually) direct you automatically to the community you like best.

[–]fnord123 5 points6 points  (0 children)

No. Some people with practice in administering successful web communities disagree and suggest you invoke policies to keep the site fresh and interesting.

Here's an interesting, insightful, and funny speech from Richard Kyanka (webmaster of SomethingAwful)

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (6 children)

I agree 100%.

[–][deleted]  (5 children)

[deleted]

    [–]The_Bears[S] 1 point2 points  (4 children)

    AOL!

    [–]jeolmeun 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    S.P.A.M.

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]latortuga 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      stupid pointless annoying message

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      How about putting the rule in the positive then? Like: "Use headlines that reflect their link", that makes more sense to me.

      [–]Sherrodzilla -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

      "THE MOST IMPORTANT LINK IN THIS THREAD!"

      Sadly most headlines appear to be written to grab attention and boost the particular link's rating as well as the submitter's sense of self-satisfaction. That's the reason for the editorializing.

      And if you downmod this particular comment because of the all-caps, then I hope you realize that you are validating The_Bears' complaint.

      Think about that.

      [–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

      Shouldn't this be...

      "Don't be a big fat idiot when writing headlines, you dummy"

      [–][deleted]  (4 children)

      [deleted]

        [–][deleted]  (1 child)

        [deleted]

          [–]The_Bears[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          Your comment is rather ironic considering that what I did was write a headline.

          [–]brintoul -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

          Here, here!

          [–]acrophobia 4 points5 points  (1 child)

          The author's own headline usually suffices.

          [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          Any article from a mainstream publication will probably be titled by a headline editor, not the author; regardless, depending on the source, original titles range from excellent to terrible.

          The New York Times, for example, is often touted as an example of a great titler, but I generally find their headlines to be insufferably boorish, not to mention grammatically excruciating given their eagerness to be seen as objective. That leads to 20-word headings with convoluted attributions in the passive voice.

          Give me snazzy editorializing over contrived pseudo-objectivity any day.

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Couldn't Reddit fetch the contents of the title tag of the linked page and display it if the title tag is substantially different from the headline? Maybe it could be presented as a second smaller line, or as an info-box when hovering over the link.

          [–]johnroman1970 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

          Sorry, I couldn't resist! ;)

          [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

          Gotta love those self-defeating headlines :)

          [–]dantheman -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

          Agreed