When posting a link to an article, I occasionally find that the title of the article doesn't best describe the content, is unnecessarily link-baity, is overly simplistic, or is bombastic.
As a result, I will title my post with what I think is a more-appropriate title for the article. Most of the time these are subtle changes. For example, today I changed the article: 10 questions about Nasa's 'impossible' space drive answered to Questions about Nasa's 'impossible' space drive answered as I find listacles to be annoying, and a question count to be unnecessary.
In other posts, I added some information, changing Scientists threaten to boycott €1.2bn Human Brain Project to Scientists threaten boycott of European commission-funded Human Brain Project, and changing Sony admits defeat in e-reader battle with Amazon to Sony admits defeat in battle with Amazon, discontinues e-reader.
Most of the time these edits are fairly innocuous. However, I wonder thoughts you all might have on the matter.
IMHO, titles are often the weakest part of a journalistic piece, and as they are typically decided by the editor, and not the author of the article, I don't feel compelled to mirror them on my post. Personally, I'd prefer that my feed be comprised of titles that reflect the content behind them, and nothing more.
I'm not here for points, I'm here for the discussion. I post titles and excerpts that I think will attract the attention of those whose opinions I want. As those excerpts often form good titles, I like the ability to make the titles long. Thanks for letting me do that.
Yes, I've noticed that. Sometimes I think it can be a good thing, as it gives me a perspective on why you posted it, and makes me more likely to share my thoughts relating to your opinion. I tend to reserve that for the text portion of a post, but sometimes I don't want to discuss the article at face-value, but want to have a discussion about my take on the article. At any rate, I suppose that what I am saying is that the title of a post can matter. I'm not suggesting that titles should be handled in any specific way, but I think it's worthwhile to put thought into them. alpha0 has great titles.
Why Do Americans Stink at Math, and stuff stuff Common Core Former Yale Professor: Avoid the Ivy League with explanation inside as to why I changed the title; essentially to make it better
Meh, the submitter already gets the readers' first eyes with the text block they submit along with a link. IMO, I think it's better to leave the original title and then leave criticism for the area right below it. But honestly, it's somewhat trivial either way, since most significant edits will be picked up on in the comments anyways.
I guess it depends on how shitty the title is to begin with. I'd much rather your interpretation/edit to 5 reasons why bioinformatics is broken. For every time that someone visits the post page, there are probably several people that read the title in one of the feeds.
Sometimes I use all caps I'll put the name of my blog, which is my username, for any posts from said blog, just for full-transparency of what you're about to click on. Snide comments happen sometimes Or I'll just full on turn into an asshole I like changes to titles. As minimum mentioned and you touched on, that bias can help start a discussion. Or you don't have to change the title and just put your own opinion in the description, since I make sure to check that before I open a link anyways, to see what I'm getting into. I like how kleinbl00 posts an excerpt from a link he posts, too.
Check out the latest eating trend in 2014 - not eating
I'm the same way. I just moved literally two miles from the closest convenient store I knew of, and that was a major reason to move because I used to live right next to an exxon and wouldn't fucking stop buying crap. And then I found a new one :c I'm restraining so far! And I ride my bike a minimum of 5 miles a day, so that's helping, but fuck I eat so unhealthily.