Please don’t hijack this with jokes implying that you didn’t read this OP. The joke is already stale, and nobody’s even made it yet.
This is something that often bugs me here at the SDMB. This rant began as a response in another thread, but then I decided not to hijack that one, so I pasted it here. In that thread, the OP wanted to discuss perceptions of “luck.” Specifically whether people tend to the gambler’s fallacy or the inverse gambler’s fallacy. But he made the mistake of titling his thread “Okay, so when do you play the lottery?” Predictably, half the respondents discussed their lottery habits. The OP came back with this:
(emphasis mine) That wasn’t your mistake, Aswan. Your mistake was posting an interesting subject line on your OP that sounded like its own question. Most people on this board (and possibly all boards? I don’t know) are terrible about reading the OP. They’ll read the title, make an assumption about what the thread is probably about, skim quickly over the OP while already mentally composing their response, and then start typing. I’ve learned over my time here that you must be absolutely literal with your title, or your thread will be hijacked within the first three responses. Or at least, there will be two conversations in your thread: the one you tried to start, and the one that was kinda suggested by the title of your OP. This used to happen to me a lot:[ul][]Speaking of the Kinetic Playground, whatever became of Aaron Russo? - What I wanted: in honor of an anniversary of the first straight dope column, a discussion of that column’s subject matter. What I got: a somewhat sarcastic link to a google search.[]The Trolley Problem (a question on ethics) - What I wanted: a discussion on why humans tend to respond to a particular hypothetical in a particular way. What I got: half the people in the thread just writing what they’d do in the hypothetical.[]Do any “historical” events predate Genesis? - I wanted: what humanity was actually doing during the era that the bible says the world was created. I got*: a horrible trainwreck of a religious debate, many accusing me of being a bible-thumper. []What did my acting professor mean when she suggested this?- I wanted: a chance for the board to make jokes about a really weird comment I got years ago. I got*: a bunch of overly-serious interpretations from concerned posters who really thought I needed more input. [/ul]Those are all at least a couple years old. I’ve since learned that people around here will NOT read your OP if your subject line sounds anything like a succinct question by itself. You must either 1) make your title a bit enigmatic, so everyone has to read the OP to figure out what you’re talking about, or 2) actually have a question that will fit in the title. Yes, I’m aware that choice #1 somewhat subverts the rules, but the teeming millions often force one’s hand.
Hmm, would have never known this existed had someone not linked to it cause I don’t frequent the Pit. Anyways, I did read the OP, as I always do, and I was responding to this particular line, the very last line of the OP:
“it” I took to mean “playing the lottery”, since the OP title is: “Okay, so when do you play the lottery”? He also doesn’t mention what else I (or he) would be avoiding if luck were on my side; if he were looking to discuss luck, he should have stated something like “what signs to you consider making you lucky/how do you go forward/etc”. So I really don’t think you have any reason to be pissed about that particular thread. I openly admit I didn’t read the other 4 threads you linked to, simply because they sound boring and I’m tired.
I’m a little confused here. Are you pitting people who don’t read the entire OP before posting, or are you pitting OPs that have misleading titles? Your own title/OP, ironically, makes this unclear.
If what you’re driving at is that thread titles should lead the reader, either directly or indirectly, into the meat of the subject, then I couldn’t agree more. Just the other day I posted something that I thought was very compelling, but the thread title was pretty weak. It got only 4 responses, and 2 of those were my own. I have only myself to blame.
I’m tempted to do an experiment: Start a thread (maybe in IMHO), give it a title that’s a question (“Do you pick your nose?” for example), and in the text of the OP explain that the question I really want people to respond to is “Do you read the OP before responding?”
I pit OPs that over-utilize links, underlines, boldings, italics, quotes, colons and brackets – making them damn near impossible to follow. Chrissakes there was everything up there but a tilde and umlaut.
What about OP’s that attempt to dictate the tone and content of all potential replies?
I kind of see what you’re getting at, Randy, but I can’t get on board here. I mean, why even start a conversation if you’re going to get upset if it doesn’t proceed in exactly the way you’d hoped? Some of the best threads on the Dope are ones that go off on tangents and/or turn into something other than originally intended. That’s what interesting real-life conversations do, too.
I’ve started more threads than I care to admit about topics I thought were interesting, but apparently to me alone. Most fizzled out, but a few found some life after a subsequent poster took it in a different direction. Given the choice, I’ll take the latter.
I think the OP should include people who disagree with a topic based on their own personal experiences, as if they themselves were the standard by which the rest of the world operates.
For instance, somebody posts “Dogs are colorblind” as a topic. Somebody responds, “No they aren’t! I can tell my little Fifi to bring me the blue ball and she’ll bring me the blue ball!” Of course, the responder doesn’t mention that they’re pointing towards the blue ball and making a big show of it as they beckon Fifi to fetch it. They just want to show how special they are that they can defy science.
Duh. And that’s all boards. That’s why you 1) phrase your thread title in a way that doesn’t require anyone read your OP, 2) restate what you said in your OP in the thread again (feel free to copy and paste directly from your OP), then 3) ignore all responses from then on people who still haven’t read what you said. Those are the rules of the internet.
Randy’s milquetoast pit announcement in the other thread didn’t even invite Aswan to his pitting. And this is the guy who is trying to give a communication lesson here?
I’m glad somebody finally started a Pit thread to talk about how fucking awesome Manchego cheese is. I mean, it’s like the king of internationally-known Spanish cheeses. I know there’s other people who say Cabrales or Garrotxa is better but I say go with the king, man.
