3 ms·

Then why do we have titles at all if people need to read the "initial lines" to know what it's about? I don't see how that's a reason not to just improve the ti

by lucb1e 5y ago

Then why do we have titles at all if people need to read the "initial lines" to know what it's about? I don't see how that's a reason not to just improve the title. Perhaps the problem was that I also felt like this was not what I expected.

dspillett 5y ago
Perhaps here it needs a better title. In the actual page the short description comes before that heading. Not sure what the best answer would be, use the longer text (too long), keep the first significant heading as title (some like yourself find this misleading), or make something up that fits (some may complain of editorialising or just that they think the alternative title is itself wrong in some way). Or you could look, see it isn't what you want/expect, and move on. It is close enough IMO, not exactly deliberately vague and/or misleading click-bait.
- pwdisswordfish8 5y ago
  > Not sure what the best answer would be The answer is to not humor people who have unreasonable complaints about things that are their own fault (making assumptions about the content of an article aka judging a book by its cover). The title is fine.