4 ms·
Sorry to bikeshed, but I feel like the new title is much less clear; I don't know how many readers would know what "Psilocybe Azurescens" means. I sure didn't.
by calebegg 8y ago
Sorry to bikeshed, but I feel like the new title is much less clear; I don't know how many readers would know what "Psilocybe Azurescens" means. I sure didn't.
If I may, I suggest: "Michael Pollan on Hallucinogenic Mushrooms"
- itomato 8y agoThey're more than "hallucinogenic", and the temporary changes to his perception aren't the thrust of the article.
- pmoriarty 8y agoI never really got what is so wrong with an interesting title, if the article itself is interesting. If an interesting title gets someone to read an interesting article, what's wrong with that? Conversely, a boring title on an interesting article is likely to make lots of people miss out on something they'd enjoy or learn from, and that is a loss. It's bad enough that there are so many interesting articles with boring titles out there, why do we have to make even those with interesting titles more boring?
- coldtea 8y agoIt's just cargo cult knee jerk reactions: "title is click-baity = bad". Half of great books, movies, articles etc titles pre-internet and pre-clicks would also have been censored under such thinking.