| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a relatively minor thing, but it has been a minor pet peeve of mine for a while and I think it is something to keep in mind when creating threads.
So, when you are creating a thread where you want to discuss like, a rules or balance thing and etcetera, how you frame the question you want people to discuss can actually have a big effect on how and if people participate.
Mostly, I am talking about conclusions dressed up as a question.
Stuff like "Wizards - are they the best class?"
or
"Flumphs - intentionally overpowered?"
(I'm avoiding real examples to avoid people feeling singled out).
The problem with those two examples is that while phrased as a question, they are phrased in such a way that they contain the answer that my biases wants, and frames anyone who disagrees with that answer as being combative.
The second example doubles down on including conclusions, and is the most egregious - it skips past the discussion of whether flumphs are overpowered to the question of whether them being overpowered is intentional or not.
A better way to phrase those questions would be;
"What do you think is the best class?"
or
"Where do you think Flumphs sit on the power scale?"
You can still include your opinion in the thread - put in the neutral title and the neutral version of the question in the post, then do like a "P.S, my personal opinion is that wizards are the best class, but I made this thread because I am eager to hear people's opinions on what the best class is".
I think that phrasing questions in a more open/neutral way rather than using language that biases the question makes for much healthier and more robust discussion (when the discussion is ostensibly meant to be a question.
For a bonus content - a bad thread title for this thread would have been "Leading Thread Titles - are people intentionally making biased threads?"
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not totally sure I 1000% agree, just because, like, sometimes we start a thread to make a specific argument, and I think it can be dishonest to make the title more vague than we're really intending it to be. But I definitely see what you're coming from.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not totally sure I 1000% agree, just because, like, sometimes we start a thread to make a specific argument, and I think it can be dishonest to make the title more vague than we're really intending it to be. But I definitely see what you're coming from.
Oh, my point is actually to be more honest with thread titles - if you are making a thread to state a specific argument, don't phrase your statement as a question. It gets confusing and annoying when people make threads to state their opinion but phrase it as a weird clickbaity question that isn't actually seeking different answers.
edit: for example, this thread is a statement/advice, so I phrased and titled it as such, instead of being phrasing it like a question while also providing the answer at the same time.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Only clickbait titles from now on.
"You won't believe what the best class is!"
"This one weird trick breaks Flumphs!"
>:3c
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Click bait works for a reason -- it implies a simple, emotional, opinion-packed discussion that can appeal to us against our better judgment. Sometimes I click on those titles just because I want to see someone be passionate, nerdy and a bit over the top. I'm more likely to do it when I am tired and don't want to think too much.
I think that there is room for both kinds of threads -- those which are outright opinion pieces, and those that invite a multitude of viewpoints. It's good if the title reflects the style of thread that you want to acheive.
Hmm
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mostly, I am talking about conclusions dressed up as a question.
Stuff like "Wizards - are they the best class?"
or
"Flumphs - intentionally overpowered?"(I'm avoiding real examples to avoid people feeling singled out).
The problem with those two examples is that while phrased as a question, they are phrased in such a way that they contain the answer that my biases wants, and frames anyone who disagrees with that answer as being combative.
Betteridge's law of headlines: Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word No.
Click bait works for a reason -- it implies a simple, emotional, opinion-packed discussion that can appeal to us against our better judgment. Sometimes I click on those titles just because I want to see someone be passionate, nerdy and a bit over the top. I'm more likely to do it when I am tired and don't want to think too much.
I think that there is room for both kinds of threads -- those which are outright opinion pieces, and those that invite a multitude of viewpoints. It's good if the title reflects the style of thread that you want to acheive.
Hmm
It's a true science as well. I occasionally have to use a program that algorithmically rates headlines based on its aggregated Intellectual, Emotional, and Spiritual quotients to provide a "clickability" rating. I need to hit a certain minimum score to prove to new clients I can actually do the job.
Very important when doing content strategy and general keyword research.
“Is replying no! to a thread title that ends with a question mark divisive?”
“Should bad threads be banned?”
“Why are the best classes never intentionally overpowered!”
“Should you ignore the content of improperishly grammar’d threads;”
“How come the devs hate unintentionally broken vegefolk: Discussion with no “No’s!””
“Or they don’t - the Thread. (Yes’s allowed conditionally).”
“All the reasons “1,001 clickbait thread title threads” are way too long.”
“When does skirting the imaginary line become overpowered - the role or roll dilemma as perceived through the Stormwind Fallacy lens!”
“Why “Why can’t fighter’s be good at quadratic equations” needlessly others martials and denigrates the advances made by casters”
“Why wizards suck - my life as a sentient spellcasting Dyson product. Thoughts?”
“Clickbait! Is linking to my blog ok?”