Comment

This isn’t an article

Precisely. I’d have expected that would’ve made the “/s” implicit… and I’d like to point out I did provide a reasoning (short, but still).

By just pointing at wikipedia, or an xkcd, or leaving a comment like this, we’re encouraging reddit and twitter style vapid interactions which consist of who can make the best joke or flame the person who posted it the quickest.

Once upon a time, my grandma told me an old joke:

A bunch of guys sit in a bar, and from time to time one shouts a number, then all start laughing. “35!”, and everyone laughs. “127!”, everyone laughs. A newcomer, after a while of looking at them perplexed, decides to ask what’s going on, so one of the guys tells him: “See, we all know each other for a long time, we’ve told the same jokes over and over, so we decided to just number them to save time”. The newcomer thinks for a while and says “That’s convenient… 178!”, and everyone falls silent. “That’s a new one”, whispers the guy.

Linking to Wikipedia or saying “XKCD 936”, is not (necessarily) a way to “make the best joke or flame”, it’s (also) a way of not repeating oneself for the thousandth time. XKCD 1053, and all that 🙄

In most cases the person sharing the article isn’t who wrote the article, so they aren’t actually in control of writing it.

The person who wrote the article, is in control though. A source’s bias, what did they decide to highlight, and how they decided to express it, is more often that not a good representation of an article’s content, as both content and title usually fall under the control of the same person (except some AB engagement testing shenanigans… which deserve to be pointed out on their own).

However, I agree there might be a fine line between:

Criticizing the source
Criticizing the poster
Linking to a reference explanation

…which sometimes might get lost in connotations. Should I edit it to add the “/s”?

source

Sort:hotnew top

Gaywallet@beehaw.org ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
To be clear this was not meant as a criticism of you, specifically. I’m simply asking that we collectively stop this kind of behavior in general on this instance, for the reasons I outlined. If there is still a desire to criticize, that we do so in a way that is not simply stating the ‘law of headlines; no’, as that’s something that I’ve seen happen on Beehaw dozens of times.

source
- jarfil@beehaw.org ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Ah… then I agree. Although personally, a link to a “question headline article” already makes me less willing to even check a conversation, and there are some on the frontpage right now… I’ve only checked this one because it was not a link. Could the low effort comments, indicate a criticism of the article selection itself?
  
  source
  - Gaywallet@beehaw.org ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    Could the low effort comments, indicate a criticism of the article selection itself?
    
    If we create a culture in which those who are upset about “question headline article” enter these threads to vent their frustration through low effort comments, it’s not necessarily a criticism so much as it is a culture we’ve created. Think about what kind of content does well on Reddit or Twitter - often times people are engaging in a way because they know the community will respond in a way and they’re looking for that particular kind of validation or engagement.
    
    We need to take a step back from time to time and think about what we’re encouraging and whether that’s helpful. If you are uninterested in interacting with “question headline article” than simply don’t. If many people share your opinion and don’t want to interact with these threads, they’ll die off and not get engagement and discussion whereas articles which don’t suffer from the same problem will have active and healthy discussions.
    
    Not every discussion is for you, and that’s okay, but engaging with content in a way that can be easily seen as negative is generally not helpful. In fact, it’s a lot worse than “not helpful” - we talk quite a bit about how we want to have an explicitly nice space and how nice spaces evaporate quickly in the face of behavior like this. There’s a good deal of nice people who don’t like being told “law of headlines, no” and will quickly leave the space if that’s the kind of engagement they see. In order to encourage these kinds of people to stick around, we need to be careful about when we choose to criticize them.
    
    I understand that you care a lot about whether a headline is reflective of the content and are triggered easily by headlines which are clickbait-y. But this isn’t a sentiment shared by everyone and some of the people who don’t share that sentiment are not being actively malicious. They may simply not have the time or the energy to correct what the author did, and are simply excited or happy to share an article they found interesting. They might be doing so because they’re particularly interested in some insights and want to share in the joy of those insights with others. Or they may want to spur a discussion on which is elaborated upon within the article. The hyperfocus on the title and how it’s presented and leaving an ultimately negative comment which discourages discussion and can leave the poster disheartened is not helpful to creating a nice environment.
    
    source
    jarfil@beehaw.org ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Good points, and a FAQ quality answer. 👍
    
    If many people share your opinion and don’t want to interact with these threads, they’ll die off and not get engagement and discussion
    
    I guess a good rule of thumb (for anyone feeling put off by clickbaity headlines) would be to look at the number of comments, then only check the thread if there is already a discussion going on.
    
    source