4 ms·
The new title is also terrible. It takes one fact mentioned in an article about broad trends in publishing and elevates it to the main thrust, which it really i
by jgwil2 6y ago
The new title is also terrible. It takes one fact mentioned in an article about broad trends in publishing and elevates it to the main thrust, which it really isn't. Would have been better to leave the original title and let people who actually read it decide what to discuss.
- krageon 6y agoIf you have a suggestion for a better more descriptive title, perhaps you could share it so that it could be improved. I don't agree with your suggestion that making it more vague would be an improvement, but I can see why you'd feel the way you do. No reason why that can't be turned into a better title.
- jgwil2 5y agoFollow the guidelines and use the original title unless there's good reason not to. I don't consider vagueness to be a good reason. The problem with the title that I was commenting on (it has since changed) is that almost everyone was reacting to the title alone without reading the article at all. If a vague title forces people to read TFA before they comment, all the better.