My thread title was, admittedly, misleading. This was not intentional. As I said in a subsequent post, I mistakenly framed the question using a popular metaphor hoping to be a bit entertaining. I was unsuccessful.
But I agree: most people did not read the OP and therefore did not respond as I had hoped. It was my error.
And I was well aware of this thread and didn’t think I was required to attend the party. Perhaps I’ve addressed this sin of omission as well.
You have preemptively ruined my fun. I hate you.
Again, I don’t think it was your error so much as it was Dopers’ annoying tendency to fail to read OPs.
Thudlow - I too, have often been tempted to do the fake subject line to highlight the problem. It’s even more tempting now that the polling option has been enabled: have a question in the subject line, and have, say, five poll options. But then explain in the OP that everyone should pick number 3, and anyone who doesn’t is a lazy non-OP reader. But I’ve never made such a thread because, among other reasons, it’s against board rules.
Dag - I gave old examples because it doesn’t really happen to me any more. Why not? Because I’ve been forced to change my tactics of writing OP subject lines. And I’m annoyed that lazy people have forced me to change my style. My apologies if this is is too weak a pitting, or if people would prefer a little more recreational outrage.
Not to mention it’s just crappy etiquette anyway. If you put a question in the thread title, that’s the question people will think you want answered. I really can’t see how this is the respondents’ problem rather than the OP’s. If you have a lengthy detailed question or scenario that needs to go in the post body, then make a thread title describing the contents, not a direct question, or at least make it a question that requires reading the OP, like “Does this look infected to you?”
Reminds me of what my smart ass English teacher in middle school did during the day when 5th graders had to shadow a 6th grader. She had this long test to fill out with all kinds of weird questions. And number eleven (or whatever number it was) said, “11. Stand up and say aloud I follow directions well.” Then the last question said something like, “Don’t answer any of the questions.” The thing is, the directions at the top of the page said to read over all the questions before starting so everyone looked like an asshole for filling out the test and getting up.
I’m guessing the former because I have the same pet peeve. I avoid asking GQ questions now because I get answers that I specifically discounted in the OP.
For example, say I had a question: “There was a minor flood and my work clothes (dress pants) got mildewy. They absolutely can not be exposed to bleach and will shrink if I try washing them in hot water. What options do I have for saving my clothes?”
First reply will probably be “Google is your friend.” and a link to some “how to” site that instructs me to wash my clothes in hot water with bleach.
The second reply will be “Ugh, the same thing happened to my towels. The best way to clean clothes that have mildewed is to wash in hot water and add some bleach. I used a half-cup of bleach on my washer’s ‘sterilize’ cycle and the musty smell went right away!”
I took that test and screwed it up. Thing is, I had interpreted the instructions as “Read each direction completely before following it.” So I would read direction 1 carefully, do it, read direction 2 carefully, do it…
I remember that. At the top of the page was the reminder to read the document in full before you start. If you did so the final question was “Now that you’ve read the entire page. Sign your name at the top and hand it in without answering any of the questions.” Only one kid got it right, the nerdy girl who always read the entire test before starting it.
It pissed me off because I used to read the entire page first, but this fake quiz was a page and a half, so I didn’t see the twist until I was getting ready for page two. (I was kind of nerdy too).
I read that test in an Omni a couple years before a teacher sprung it on me in class. Lotsa fun when you’re in on the joke and kids start standing up on their desk and counting down from ten and whatever.
Freudian Slit, I had an instructor in the Army try to pull that trick on our class in Advanced Training. I saw through it and blew it up on him by handing in the blank test after the few minutes it took to read the thing and walked out for a cigarette. Everyone else figured it out then and we all had a good laugh on him. Unfortunately, this was the Army and the rest of the course went a little hard on me.
Randy, I’m not disagreeing with you so much as agreeing with you on different terms. It’s not that readers are lazy so much as they are not motivated. We rarely read stuff on the Net the way we might read a summer blockbuster at the beach. And subtlety and nuance are almost always lost. It’s not laziness, just human nature, and at some point you recognize it and accept it. You’ve made the adjustment, now I have to do the same.
But thank you for tilting at this windmill.
Maybe we’re all being played here, but it seems that those threads stayed pretty much on the topic discussed in the OP. Or at least as much as can be expected on a message board.
In the acting thread I don’t see a whole lot of serious discussion about personalities or whatever going on. There is a minor hijack about method acting. In your last comment you even thank people for making hilarious comments.
In the trolley discussion people mostly answered your question and didn’t just say what they would do. To be fair there were a number of comments critiquing or modifying the thought experiment. But it wasn’t a litany of comments just saying I’d do A or B.
In the Kinetic playground thread you had an OP with 3 questions in it. A month later there came your one and only reply to a link that presumably had some relevant info about those questions (I can’t tell since the link seems dead now.)
So in 1 & 2 you got pretty much what you seemed to want. In 3 you made a post that no one seemed to have any interest in and someone finally posted a response that presumably answered the question you asked even if it didn’t spark the discussion you were hoping for.
I just paged through the Bible thread. Religion threads often seem to go off the rails. Some people at least seemed to respond to your question though.
Yeah, I’ve had a few threads like that. It’s frustrating.
Well, I may have pre-hijacked my own thread. I posted those four items merely as examples of my own threads where the subject line got more traction than the OP. I’ve seen far worse trainwrecks in other people’s threads, but I posted my own OP threads because I didn’t want to call anybody else out for their titles.
I don’t want to start a discussion of my example threads, but I do want to respond very briefly. In the acting thread, I appreciated the heartfelt (if unwanted) acting advice, and didn’t want to snub anybody, so only nice comments there. In the trolley thread, most people did not answer the question. Take a close look: my actual question was in large font and bolded in the OP. While there was some discussion beforehand, the first post to address the actual OP question was #17. There were nine responses before this giving personal reactions to the hypothetical. And the “religion thread,” as you put it, wasn’t a religion thread. It was a history thread that I was stupid enough to title like a religion thread. Prime example of people thinking up their responses between reading the title and reading the OP.
The title is part of the op. Don’t be treating it like some kid of loss leader or honey trap or twelve-year-old prostitute luring tourists to a robbery and a beating.
Now I’m going to feel really guilty about checking out the hot new thread titles.
Dogs can see blue.
But they can’t look up.
Geez, lighten up Francis. Most people come here for entertainment, not to work on their doctoral thesis.
I wish I was so superior.
But I did read the op!
Easily the saddest Pit thread ever.