Wow, it is a small world. I have always had a deep, abiding dislike for South Gwinnett. Althought it does manily stem from the basketball coach they had(Ron Link) when I played for Parkview.
They do have a dang nice gym now though. Much better than that previous thing.
Hey, I just realized how totally off topic this post is. Yeah, another hijacking for me.
Methinks that if you were truly worried about the utmost efficiency in your exciting life, JoeBlank, you wouldn’t be reading SDMB. The finer things in life are quite inefficient.
“Excuse me, Mr. Bach. Hi. I’m trying to streamline my Baroque appreciation time, and your title of “Brandenburg Concerto #3 in G Major” isn’t really descriptive enough. I only like adagio pieces and would rather not waste my time with anything allegro. Also, I find oboes to be irritating. Please indicate your orchestral arrangement in the title. Thanks a bunch, JB.”
Ya big baby.
Back off, man. I’m a scientist.
Alphagene,
Coldfire
“You know how complex women are”
Damn… this is the sixth time I’ve opened this. I keep thinking it is asking what we like to tie strings around. Next time could you put “not about string” in the topic.
Thanks
I try to set the tone and the point with my title. I too get annoyed when the title has nothing or not much to do with the OP. But I have a good memory so I only hit it once.
Oh, well. Everyone is different I suppose. And sometimes I do wander into a thread I may not have opened on purpose and actually find something to discuss there.
Best!
Byz
Your Thread Title[sup]*[/sup] horroscope –
1. Thread titles that are descriptive:
*Considerate and efficient*
2. Thread titles that are clever and unique:
*Intelligent and memorable*
3. Thread titles that are bland and uninformative:
*Stupid asshole*
Peace
[sup]*[/sup]The same applies to email subject lines.
While I agree that subject lines like “a question” or “more MPSIMS” are next to useless, I don’t agree with several of your examples… namely:
*Is this legal?
Should I get mixed up in this?*
–
O p a l C a t
www.opalcat.com
OpalCat, both the titles you mention could be about anything. They have close to zero information. Was there sarcasm there that I totally missed?
Why not add a word or two and make the title absolutely clear?
“Is rhino felching legal?”
“Should I get mixed up in the Lithuanian ass-lizard trade?”
“Should I get mixed up in the Lithuanian ass-lizard trade?”
Absolutely! My sources predict ass-lizard stock, particularly that of Lithuanian ass-lizards to go through the roof within the next month!
Sorry, couldn’t help it…
I think that’s ass-lizard futures, I’d check with Hillary though
Dopeler effect:
The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.
Sorry! I was thinking Lithuanian Ass-Lizards Inc.
As far as ass-lizard futures, you’re much better off investing in the Indonesian breed.
I’m with the “better titles” folks. Like Joe, I skip the ones that aren’t descriptive enough or don’t strike me as something I’d be interested in - the trouble with that is, weeks later, I see a bunch of replies to it, decide to open it up, and see that it WAS something I would’ve replied to. At that point, with, say 50-60 posts in the thread, I’m probably not going to bother reading the entire thing, or reply. I’ve always tried to be descriptive in my titles, as I figure that’s the place to catch the eye of the person who has the answer to my post. Better titles increase your chances of getting the info you want.