This is a very interesting article, however, IMHO it has several major problems: 1. The author doesn't understand, or is too lazy to recognize, that "correlati

This is a very interesting article, however, IMHO it has several major problems: 1. The author doesn't understand, or is too lazy to recognize, that "correlation does not imply causation". It's hard to read sentences like it seems like the length of the title has a minor influence on the quality of the question and not shudder. 2. There's no interpretation. At all. It's just queries, and doesn't provide any real insight into how to write better questions, get better answers, or get more upvotes. No hypothesis or model. 3. It's missing meaningful statistical measures, such as standard deviations, error bars, etc. For example, is this even statistically significant: The average title length of the top questions was about 5% shorter than that of standard titles (47 characters vs. 50) ? 4. Biased samples. So my takeaway is that it was fun and interesting to read, but not very meaningful.