4 ms·

One's relationship with the topic probably has a lot to do with how the title is interpreted. I grew up not-too-far from Mount St. Helens and was of school age

by II2II 2y ago

One's relationship with the topic probably has a lot to do with how the title is interpreted. I grew up not-too-far from Mount St. Helens and was of school age not-too-long after the eruption, so it had an indirect impact upon my life. I immediately understood what they were getting at. Likewise, the people who did the research and the people who wrote the article had a closer relationship to the topic, so they title made sense. To someone who was more distant, in time or space, I can see how the title may be misleading now that it has been pointed out. So no, I don't think the title was designed in such a way.

James_K 2y ago
Counterpoint: the article is aimed at people who know nothing about the topic, the first image in the article (the one you'll see if you post a link to it) is of Mount St. Helens erupting, and it drives engagement. I was definitely much more likely to click on the article when I thought it was about gophers blowing up volcanoes. The title also explicitly mentions it happened in "one day" which isn't long enough for re-wilding but is the right time frame for an eruption.
- II2II 2y ago
  I have no doubt the title (and first image) were selected to drive engagement, I simply have serious doubts that it was intended to drive engagement from that angle. To add some context, the eruption of Mount St. Helens was viewed as a fairly significant ecological disaster in the 1980's (and, for once, one that wasn't caused by humans). There were a lot of photos of the devastation, and people were wondering how long it would take to recover. In all probability, the title was written from that perspective. Which is engaging, at least to those who lived near the time of the event or who are interested in how ecosystems recover. As for gophers causing it to erupt, that type of connotation implies a very different type of publication.
  - James_K 2y ago
    I suppose it could be an accident that the headline has the connotation, but I tend to think it unwise to give people the benefit of the doubt if the "accident" in question is also beneficial to them.

by II2II 2y ago

James_K 2y ago

Counterpoint: the article is aimed at people who know nothing about the topic, the first image in the article (the one you'll see if you post a link to it) is of Mount St. Helens erupting, and it drives engagement. I was definitely much more likely to click on the article when I thought it was about gophers blowing up volcanoes. The title also explicitly mentions it happened in "one day" which isn't long enough for re-wilding but is the right time frame for an eruption.

II2II 2y ago
I have no doubt the title (and first image) were selected to drive engagement, I simply have serious doubts that it was intended to drive engagement from that angle. To add some context, the eruption of Mount St. Helens was viewed as a fairly significant ecological disaster in the 1980's (and, for once, one that wasn't caused by humans). There were a lot of photos of the devastation, and people were wondering how long it would take to recover. In all probability, the title was written from that perspective. Which is engaging, at least to those who lived near the time of the event or who are interested in how ecosystems recover. As for gophers causing it to erupt, that type of connotation implies a very different type of publication.
- James_K 2y ago
  I suppose it could be an accident that the headline has the connotation, but I tend to think it unwise to give people the benefit of the doubt if the "accident" in question is also beneficial to them.