4 ms·

I'm sorry but who is he? Could someone update the title to be more informative?

maxerickson 12y ago
Here's the first paragraph of the link: David Carr, a writer who wriggled away from the demon of drug addiction to become an unlikely name-brand media columnist at The New York Times, and the star of a documentary about the newspaper, died on Thursday in Manhattan. He was 58. If you didn't already know his work, I can't see why you would care to know any more than that. I've responded to your comment, but really, I'm responding to the whole category of comments that say "Why should I care about this.". Moreover, if those comments aren't interested enough to spend a couple minutes looking into it themselves, how interested are they actually going to be in any responses?
- mathgeek 12y ago
  I believe the obvious point here is that when there are two or more semi- to relatively famous people who share the same name, it's generally better to put which one you're referring to in the title. If it's not obvious who the other famous David Carr is, consider for a second that to someone who doesn't read the Times, it's the same situation. To me, there is an obvious age difference, which makes the title alright in the end.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    I don't really know either one. I just can't reconcile the "it's important to me to know this" with the "I didn't read the first paragraph."
    - mathgeek 12y ago
      It really depends on how you consume your headlines. "David Carr dead at 58" is, in my opinion, less informative that "David Carr, acclaimed NY Times journalist, dead at 58."
      - 72deluxe 12y ago
        Thanks to maxerickson for expanding on the article that I obviously didn't read. I would strongly agree with mathgeek here though - it's best to put the relevant details in the title to enable me to see if I should even read the article or the comments, and to edge on the side of safety that not everyone here is in the same country, age bracket or work/social circles as you. I've never read the NY Times. I'm not in America. I mean Steve Strange died today too - if I just posted a headline stating "Steve Strange has died" I would get a barrage of comments asking - "who is he? why is this relevant to me?".
        maxerickson 12y ago
        I wasn't arguing against informative headlines. I was labeling those comments as pointless. They frustrate me a little bit (because of what I said above about reconciling the supposed interest behind the question with the paucity of (misdirected!) effort). Also, such comments can always be replaced with "I didn't know who David Carr was. He was ...".
        72deluxe 12y ago
        You're right - I should have read it and stated who this person was in the comment, in order to benefit others. But mine was more of a protest at the uninformative headline.
        maxerickson 12y ago
        I wonder if my complaining will head off the 8 comments it would take to get back to zero (so to speak). I suppose the thing to do is create a culture here of saying "If you are going to complain that the headline is uninformative, please also provide the information you think it is missing."
        72deluxe 12y ago
        Or a culture of informative headlines! I have suffered downvotes for asking a question, weirdly.
- 72deluxe 12y ago
  Thanks for informing me. I wish the titles here would be more informative at times. I typically find the discussions here more interesting than the articles. In some cases, a short pithy article generates a mass of comments and good discussion.

Here's the first paragraph of the link: David Carr, a writer who wriggled away from the demon of drug addiction to become an unlikely name-brand media columnist at The New York Times, and the star of a documentary about the newspaper, died on Thursday in Manhattan. He was 58. If you didn't already know his work, I can't see why you would care to know any more than that. I've responded to your comment, but really, I'm responding to the whole category of comments that say "Why should I care about this.". Moreover, if those comments aren't interested enough to spend a couple minutes looking into it themselves, how interested are they actually going to be in any responses?

mathgeek 12y ago
I believe the obvious point here is that when there are two or more semi- to relatively famous people who share the same name, it's generally better to put which one you're referring to in the title. If it's not obvious who the other famous David Carr is, consider for a second that to someone who doesn't read the Times, it's the same situation. To me, there is an obvious age difference, which makes the title alright in the end.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  I don't really know either one. I just can't reconcile the "it's important to me to know this" with the "I didn't read the first paragraph."
  - mathgeek 12y ago
    It really depends on how you consume your headlines. "David Carr dead at 58" is, in my opinion, less informative that "David Carr, acclaimed NY Times journalist, dead at 58."
    - 72deluxe 12y ago
      Thanks to maxerickson for expanding on the article that I obviously didn't read. I would strongly agree with mathgeek here though - it's best to put the relevant details in the title to enable me to see if I should even read the article or the comments, and to edge on the side of safety that not everyone here is in the same country, age bracket or work/social circles as you. I've never read the NY Times. I'm not in America. I mean Steve Strange died today too - if I just posted a headline stating "Steve Strange has died" I would get a barrage of comments asking - "who is he? why is this relevant to me?".
      - maxerickson 12y ago
        I wasn't arguing against informative headlines. I was labeling those comments as pointless. They frustrate me a little bit (because of what I said above about reconciling the supposed interest behind the question with the paucity of (misdirected!) effort). Also, such comments can always be replaced with "I didn't know who David Carr was. He was ...".
        72deluxe 12y ago
        You're right - I should have read it and stated who this person was in the comment, in order to benefit others. But mine was more of a protest at the uninformative headline.
        maxerickson 12y ago
        I wonder if my complaining will head off the 8 comments it would take to get back to zero (so to speak). I suppose the thing to do is create a culture here of saying "If you are going to complain that the headline is uninformative, please also provide the information you think it is missing."
        72deluxe 12y ago
        Or a culture of informative headlines! I have suffered downvotes for asking a question, weirdly.
72deluxe 12y ago
Thanks for informing me. I wish the titles here would be more informative at times. I typically find the discussions here more interesting than the articles. In some cases, a short pithy article generates a mass of comments and good discussion.