6 ms·

So you're suggesting that articles without compelling content should still have compelling titles? The goal is certainly to gain readership, but adding controv

So you're suggesting that articles without compelling content should still have compelling titles? The goal is certainly to gain readership, but adding controversy to a title on an article that doesn't contain any isn't a good idea. It's a misrepresentation of your article, and what extra traffic it does bring you isn't likely to result in happy new readers. Some articles just don't appeal to a lot of people because of their content. That doesn't mean a title that reflects what's in the article is a bad idea; it just means the author should either have realistic expectations regarding the exposure their article can reasonably expect, they should be writing something that is controversial, or they should be writing something else entirely. If your goal is to communicate specific information and your title doesn't reflect it accurately, all you've done is fail at titling your work.

mindcrime 13y ago
So you're suggesting that articles without compelling content should still have compelling titles? Not at all. Obviously this exists on a continuum and is somewhat subjective, however. I would never advocate posting low quality content with a flat-out link-baity title like "Learn About Bill Gates and Ada Lovelace's Secret Lovechild: Mark Zuckerberg" or something. But I think you have to create a title which is as compelling as you can, while being faithful to the content. But, as in all cases, there will always be people who agree and some who disagree about whether you've accomplished that or not. All I'm getting at is that a headline shouldn't dissemble and be wishy-washy and say nothing. It's an opinion, that I'm asserting (that the "Star Trek Computer Will Be..."), but even I won't go quite as far as saying it's "a foregone conclusion". There is evidence to suggest that such a thing may be the case, and that's what this post was about. In this case, I'm perfectly happy with the congruence between the headline and the content. If others aren't, then I'll be curious to hear their POV on it.

mindcrime 13y ago

So you're suggesting that articles without compelling content should still have compelling titles? Not at all. Obviously this exists on a continuum and is somewhat subjective, however. I would never advocate posting low quality content with a flat-out link-baity title like "Learn About Bill Gates and Ada Lovelace's Secret Lovechild: Mark Zuckerberg" or something. But I think you have to create a title which is as compelling as you can, while being faithful to the content. But, as in all cases, there will always be people who agree and some who disagree about whether you've accomplished that or not. All I'm getting at is that a headline shouldn't dissemble and be wishy-washy and say nothing. It's an opinion, that I'm asserting (that the "Star Trek Computer Will Be..."), but even I won't go quite as far as saying it's "a foregone conclusion". There is evidence to suggest that such a thing may be the case, and that's what this post was about. In this case, I'm perfectly happy with the congruence between the headline and the content. If others aren't, then I'll be curious to hear their POV on it.