3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThanks 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 agoI 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 agoYou'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 agoI 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 agoOr a culture of informative headlines! I have suffered downvotes for asking a question, weirdly.