General discussion

Locked

No titles in replies?

By sMoRTy71 ·
I would like to remove the TITLE field from replying to threads. What do you all think?

We would still have titles on starting a thread; however, when you reply, you could just type your reply.

I always find myself having to stop and think of a title, even though I know exactly what I want to say in the MESSAGE field.

In the thread tree, we would show the first 47 characters of the MESSAGE field (which is what we do now if there is no title).

So what are your thoughts?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

99 total posts (Page 1 of 10)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

really?

by Jaqui In reply to No titles in replies?

then why in replying to a post the other day did I get an error requiring me to put a title in?

Actually, if you need a title for the thread display of the posts, then you might as well leave them in.
I agree it's a pain to have to think of a post title, which is why a serious reply I usually use the first couple of words for the reply as the title.

Collapse -

Doh!

by sMoRTy71 In reply to really?

Don't I feel stupid! The form is requiring a title.

I still think we should get rid of it.

Collapse -

I don't.

by apotheon In reply to Doh!

I don't think we should get rid of it. In fact, what bothers me is the notion of just using the first n characters of the post as the title. This has been default behavior at TR for some time, as far as I can tell, and the end result is a mess: we end up with linebreaks being amongst those first n characters, italics, and other things -- which wouldn't really be a problem, if italics didn't break editing capability (at least temporarily) when I forget to add a title and linebreaks in the title didn't completely screw up the thread display.

Also, I like having the option of adding a post title and I like others providing useful titles. A title like "OS vs. application platform" is a lot more descriptive than "Well, I think that what you're saying is . . .". It's also worth considering the fact that it's easier to use a browser's search functionality to find posts by title when those titles are named according to content rather than whatever babbling comes out of the poster's fingers as a clumsy means of leading into a counterpoint.

I say keep it as an option rather than eliminating it or requiring it, and fix the autofill so that it strips all markup from those first 47 characters, including linebreaks -- or perhaps cuts off at 47 characters or the first linebreak, whichever comes first (while still stripping markup so we don't get the broken-editing thing with italics).

Collapse -

~chuckle~

by Jaqui In reply to Doh!

Since that requirement is a change with the last alteration in the script, you aren't that stupid.

1) emoticons are now rendering in post titles [ chnged in last couple of weeks ]

2) titles are now required, the first x charachters of the post won't do any more.

3) change the term to Subject of Post rather than title

4) mouseover gives the first 47 characters of the post. [ vbulliten does this on Linuxquestions.org very handy feature as you can see if the post has content you want / need to read before clicking on it.]

Collapse -

gawd

by apotheon In reply to ~chuckle~

1. I wish they'd get rid of emoticons in post titles. It's bad enough when they're in the body of a post. Now I have to see them in the titles. Someone must pay!

4. I thought you didn't like Javascript.

Collapse -

I don't

by Jaqui In reply to gawd

it's the second biggest piece of exploitware out there.
[ activex, MS's proprietary JAVASCRIPT is the biggest ]

but mouseover isn't limted to javascript you know, it works with css as well ~l~

Collapse -

true, but

by apotheon In reply to I don't

Your implication is correct: the same effect could be achieved with CSS. On the other hand, that would be a really nasty hack, and I would mericlessly mock anyone that used it.

Collapse -

So in future

by rob mekel In reply to Doh!

I put the title in the first 47 positions of my text. Right?

Seriously, altho titles can be a pain in the a$$ sometimes and they will take time if making up a nice one. I think it is worthwhile doing.

Rob

Collapse -

I feel strongly both ways.

by CharlieSpencer In reply to No titles in replies?

At first I thought, "Ditch 'em. Most posters don't enter effective titles that give a reader any idea what's inside their message."

Then I thought, "Keep 'em. That occasional user who does enter a relevant title should be encouraged."

Then I thought, "Keep 'em but make them optional. Those who use titles effectively can continue to do so, and those who don't like to enter a title can let the first 47 characters speak for themselves."

Then I -decided- it doesn't matter to me either way.

Collapse -

exception

by apotheon In reply to I feel strongly both ways ...

That 47 characters thing, if it's going to be used, needs to be FIXED. TR has allowed the whole n characters thing in the past as an alternative to post titles, but its implementation was horribly broken because of the way it handled markup and the fact that linebreaks mangled display of post titles in the thread. That's bad. I'd rather keep forcing use of titles than have to deal with that crap any longer.

Back to Community Forum
99 total posts (Page 1 of 10)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums