h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

To answer a difference of opinion, are they still supposed to be basically plain meat and potatoes for efficiency and PDAs.

Or how much can they be smothered in honey, brown sugar, mustard and cayenne?

Cheers,
Waz

Speaking as a sub-ed, there's been no alteration in our instructions. It all depends who does the final polish, I think, I submitted "Pink - A Diva of a Colour" and it hit the FP as "Pink - the Colour" yet today's Mick Jagger - kept its original title.

Thanks GB.

Your original was better, imo. Added colour without hiding the colour.

I'd be far more likely to read it with your title, and it probably reflects the style of the entry better - if it's in your usual style.

The plain title suggests it'll simply say 'is what you get when you mix red and white.'

Are you allowed to say what the instructions are?

The instructions are: plain meat and potatoes for efficiency - "does what it says on the tin" to quote Jimster.

I don't change authors' titles, I usually discuss the options with them before I return the subbed article.

I've seen titles hit the FP smothered in honey, brown sugar, mustard and cayenne, and been really annoyed. Other titles I thought were great in PR were pared to the bone for editing and made me so angry I almost flounced off in a huff.

I'm sure this isn't helping but I feel your frustration, any clue what you're discussing? Doesn't matter if you don't want to say I'm happy to advise though, anytime

Oh, just in one of Jordanwithnewlyadded'r's journals, posters were listing what motivated or demotivated them from writing.

I'm lightweight enough to be put off by the plain titles thing. Seriously .

Tins . Tesco blue and white 'value' tins!

I think titles can be important. I've written a few entries where the best part of the thing was the title. (in A1062569 the best part of the entry is the title, I think, followed closely by the picture) I was sad to see that the Pink entry got the second part of its title chopped off. 'A Diva of a Colour' is simply a perfect title addon for that entry and the subject

Titles can serve a few purposes. Off the top of my head, they can grab attention (A8379507, A1076906, A2408401, A1037693). They can be funny or grin-worthy (the Pink entry, A583300... puns are always nice too - A692813). They can tie together parts of an entry (A5104333). They can make a point within the context of the entry (A1043173). The second part can be used to preview an entry's contents (A28387551, A610688 and other examples are numerous). They can ask a question (A1053901).

My point is that there's more to titles than just labelling a tin. I think most people realize that though. It'd be nice if subbies and the italics regarded titles as important parts of an entry, worthy of consultation before changing. (see F5150804?thread=3766850) Titles generally aren't the most important part of an entry, but some people put some time into coming up with a good one.

It's important to remember that the subject field of any Internet page helps its ranking in search engines much more than the rest of the text. If you want your Entry to be found by internet-users at large as well as the h2g2 community, it should be titled with at least some correspondence with the sort of terms people might Google for. I think this helps steer the Editors' preference, as it helps the visibility of the site.

'I've written a few entries where the best part of the thing was the title.' - *insert Jodon-effacing joke here*

A good example of the search engine argument is shown in one of my first entries for hootoo. I wrote about a guy. A Lebanese reporter/newspaper mogul type guy. He'd been assassinated. Short story is that protocol demands the entry be headed with his name, period. I disagreed. Noone even knew about him outside Lebanon. I asked the Eds to change it back. It was.

The way people were going to find my entry, hopefully, was by googling for "speech freedom lebanon".

Try it

W

I just searched for 'quad-nips' and found a reference to my four nipples on someone's blog at http://thesuperfluousnipple.blogspot.com/2005_11_01_archive.html (26 Nov entry). That's beautiful.

Well, that's depressing
Not the fact that someone referenced your nipples. That's nice enough. I dunno if I would go for the word 'beautiful' but it's great.
What's depressing is that (prompted by your post, Rich) I just googled around, searching for links to my entries. I've written entries on the history of the US, several Presidents, the history of Flight, the Civil War and most of the famous baseball players of America. And by far the most popular entry of mine across the internet is the one about the nipples.

Sometimes I despair.

I know how you feel, J. The blog says I'm anonymous, when my name is clearly on it - right under 'Edited by'. My nips never get the credit they deserve.

This subbie *does* regard titles as important.
A14455352 - I subbed that and was when it was reduced from "Hammersmith - A Diva of a Bridge" to "Hammersmith Bridge, London" after I'd returned it.

There was one by Fizzy - "Perfume - not to be sniffed at" A20074682
also subbed by me - hit the front page as - wait for it - "Perfume"



I know I am exhibiting unprofessional behaviour here but it's very late and I'm extremely tired so I'll apologise now and to bed

Well, if we're returning to the subject at hand...

In the first of those examples, 'Hammersmith - A Diva of a Bridge' isn't a good title. Most people, if searching for information on Hammersmith Bridge, would put 'Hammersmith Bridge' in quotes and probably be looking for something with 'London' in the title. They wouldn't search for 'Hammersmith Diva'. So purely on the basis that we're providing information that we might want someone to read at some point, 'Hammersmith Bridge, London' is a much better title. The subject field is given highest priority in searches.

The second - with all apologies and no offence intended to Fizzy - looks like a bad pun. The thing is that, if you think it is a bad pun, the title makes it look amateurish before you've read a word of it, so although it's a very good Entry and is well-written, it *looks* like it isn't. It looks flippant rather than authoritative, purely because of the title.

In my view, we have to consider whether the title is good for the site as well as ourselves. It's no good writing a great Entry that no one outside h2g2 ever reads because it has an inappropriate title, however much it might please our egos.

Finally, I don't think the Subs ever make changes to a title in any case; it feels beyond our remit.

I've made changes to the title when it's ridiculously poor - if it's far too long or makes no reference to the subject at hand. I don't change creative titles, though.

I could be wrong, but I suspect some of the recent title-changing might have come down from on high.

if the words Hammersmith and Bridge are in the title, then it will be found in a search engine.

The problem is, and it's one I do come back to occasionally is that it often seems that the PR/subbing/editing process sucks the originality out of an entry. The title is symptomatic.

And quite frankly, it really does put me off writing.

I do think the title of an entry is important. Since we put entries on the front page, we are a little like a magazine and should not overlook the importance of the titles to pique interest.

Consider this - many years ago, I saw an article in New Scientist about a dispute over fishing rights - it was titled "A Cod Peace" and ever since that, New Scientist can do no wrong as far as I'm concerned and I'm a fan for life.

We will never be an encyclopedia, exactly, so why have titles like one? Why not quirk up the search engine instead? Or add a bit to each entry that has keywords?

My

I've only had one title changed (which got re-enstated after a year of moaning).

A2875368 - was renamed "The War Crimes of Josef Mengele".
Which was nice considering it was about his life, his war crimes and his escape from justice. Again, I did want the word Auschwitz in the title, just for google purposes...

I agree entirely with pailaway though, our titles should grab the attention, not put off readers by suggesting that what's contained within is dull, boring or ordinary. There could be a case for us thinking up interesting leaders to go on the FP to engage readers too.

I was the one who changed Wilma's title, to fit with House Style. I noticed the Eds changed it back and never queried it, because I assumed she'd contacted the Eds with a good reason (which I've just seen she did).

I prefer to see the correct titles, following the same format that has been used for years. I've had titles changed to fit, and as a Curator I sometimes tweak titles (but never make major changes, just add the '' round something that would be in italics in the entry for example).

Jonathan Wild - London's First Organised Crime Lord is probably the only one of mine that isn't standard, but hardly anyone would know who he was! Oh yeah, and this one - 10,000 Steps to Health – Myth or Magic? which I did fight to keep.

I recall my Ghost Chicken Entry was retitled A14042099

The original being - 'Bacon & Cold Chicken - A Ghoulish Recipe'

I can understand why it was changed, it's NOT a recipe. But I must admit, that was the reason that I chose the title. People who are looking for recipes might read it instead, thus someone who might not have read it, will. A hook if you like.

Now it has no hook.

And it's about a chicken. Not a fish.

Sometimes I feel titles are changed for the pure sake of search engines, not for the style of the piece in question. Or the writing style. And search engines can often lead people in to paces they might not ordinarily, and then viola, more h2g2 readers/contributers...

Ah well.

I think the new title works better. I'd read that, it's clearly a spooky story about a chicken, rather than, as the original title implies, a recipe for halloween.

I've got one with an FM rescue with a 'wrong' title at the moment - When Stuff Goes Bad or: Things to Look For if your Appliance Stops Working - I'll be interested how it arrives on the Front Page.