A Note on Topic Titles – Be Clear & Descriptive!

[Greg]

Hey everyone,

I've noticed that some topic titles are too vague or unclear, making it harder for others to understand what the discussion is about. While a creative or mysterious title might seem interesting, it can actually make it more difficult for members to engage with your post.

Why does this matter?

• A clear and descriptive title helps others quickly grasp what your topic is about.
• It improves engagement—people are more likely to click and participate.
• It enhances Search Engine Optimization (SEO), making topics easier to find on search engines like Google.
• It makes the forum more organized and accessible for everyone.

Best Practices for Titles:

• Be specific: Instead of "Wow, did you see this?" → Try "New Policy Proposal on Tax Reform – What Do You Think?"
• Use key details: Instead of "A Big Problem" → Try "Concerns About New Internet Regulation – Impact on Free Speech?"
• Avoid clickbait or one-word titles: Make sure the title reflects the discussion topic.

This small change makes a big difference for the quality of discussions and the visibility of our community. Let’s all work together to make our forum more engaging and searchable!

Thanks! 🚀

[Greg]

I will begin to lock forum topics that contain a poorly structured title.

Give some thought to your title, or your topics will be locked and unavailable.

[NAME REMOVED]

You lock a thread title of mine from 2 weeks ago, before even making any kind of announcement?  And then s**t on me in DM? Meanwhile, a loon like @gatomontes99 creates 200 garbage threads spamming the forum.  No wonder this is a haven for fascism.  If one is not MAGA, they are not welcome.

 

I'm gone. F**k you, Greg!

Edited February 11, 2025 by DUI_Offender

[Greg]

Good bye!

[User]

I was wondering what happened to DUI. Mystery solved. LOL

[User]

Greg, I welcome your new ideas with titles here, but your implementation has been woefully lacking. I say this as constructive criticism. 

You came in strong, started changing stuff, sent this message out, and added the banner, but it seems like radio silence here ever since. 

If you do this, you will have to stick with it and change the culture here with consistent enforcement and requests for a bit. 

 

 

 

Edited February 17, 2025 by User

[Greg]

12 minutes ago, User said:

Greg, I welcome your new ideas with titles here, but your implementation has been woefully lacking.

what implementation?

I can't force people to write proper titles, but I've been asking those who do a poor job to fix them.

13 minutes ago, User said:

but it seems like radio silence here ever since. 

There really isn't much to be said in this thread about this recommendation. However, I do see improvements in recent topic titles, so I think the pressure and encouragement is working.

15 minutes ago, User said:

If you do this, you will have to stick with it and change the culture here with consistent enforcement and requests for a bit. 

I plan on it.

[User]

42 minutes ago, Greg said:

what implementation?

I can't force people to write proper titles, but I've been asking those who do a poor job to fix them.

Um... it appeared you locked a couple of threads after warnings. This whole meltdown of DUI's stemmed from that, but since then, it doesn't appear you are doing much of anything to lock any threads or post any warnings. 

I could be mistaken or maybe it is just DM's and I obviously can't see those. 

44 minutes ago, Greg said:

There really isn't much to be said in this thread about this recommendation. However, I do see improvements in recent topic titles, so I think the pressure and encouragement is working.

I agree. 

44 minutes ago, Greg said:

I plan on it.

Great! 

[Greg]

1 hour ago, User said:

Um... it appeared you locked a couple of threads after warnings. This whole meltdown of DUI's stemmed from that, but since then, it doesn't appear you are doing much of anything to lock any threads or post any warnings. 

I've only had to threaten to lock a few threads, and in most cases, those warnings were directed at senior members who should know better. Newer members get a bit more leeway, but I still expect them to fix poor thread titles and improve their clarity over time.

I've been using a mix of public admonishments, private warnings, and internal alerts to address issues, and I'm still refining the best way to communicate when members need to step up.

That said, I’ll be rolling out several new recommendations over the next few months. It’s crucial that we all start paying more attention to thread titles and overall post clarity—otherwise, this forum will lose visibility in Google's search rankings and beyond.

The rules and guidelines have also been revamped, and moving forward, there will be a stronger expectation that everyone follows them. I’ll be sharing more details on these updates in the coming weeks and months.

[User]

6 minutes ago, Greg said:

That said, I’ll be rolling out several new recommendations over the next few months. It’s crucial that we all start paying more attention to thread titles and overall post clarity—otherwise, this forum will lose visibility in Google's search rankings and beyond.

The rules and guidelines have also been revamped, and moving forward, there will be a stronger expectation that everyone follows them. I’ll be sharing more details on these updates in the coming weeks and months.

I will try to do my part. Thanks!

[gatomontes99]

On 2/11/2025 at 11:15 AM, Greg said:

Good bye!

I will say that for the past week or so, the forum has been a lot more civil. Some will say small forums shouldn't use tools like bans and suspensions because they need the traffic. But I do appreciate more civil discussions.

[Matthew]

On 2/17/2025 at 4:00 PM, Greg said:

The rules and guidelines have also been revamped, and moving forward, there will be a stronger expectation that everyone follows them. I’ll be sharing more details on these updates in the coming weeks and months.

It would be great if Guideline 1 were followed.

I think the problem is that forum organization does not lend itself to the differing tiers of political discussion. The bottom tier, which makes up 99% of the content here, is low-quality, low-information, and poorly sourced opinion. It's everyday quick reactions. Nothing wrong with that--its largely what people come here for.

But higher quality policy discussion quickly gets swallowed up and hijacked by the low-quality off-topic nonsense. It's discouraging to those with thoughtful topic ideas, knowing that if they bother to post it, it will just be immediately taken over by nincompoops.

It's telling that the forum called "Federal Policies in the United States" almost never has an active thread about any actual federal policy.

My proposal would be to make a Political Opinions forum for casual chat, and a Policy Discussion forum for moderated debate, in which replies must be on-topic and meet some minimal objective threshold of quality. Although this would require a whole team of at least a half- dozen liberal and conservative moderators. Frankly I don't think this forum's right wing has a deep enough bench of accountable/responsible people to facilitate this.

[Greg]

On 2/24/2025 at 6:46 PM, Matthew said:

My proposal would be to make a Political Opinions forum for casual chat, and a Policy Discussion forum for moderated debate, in which replies must be on-topic and meet some minimal objective threshold of quality. Although this would require a whole team of at least a half- dozen liberal and conservative moderators.

It's not a bad proposal, and I'll be open to at least trying something like this on a trial basis - or perhaps just designating certain featured threads as moderated.

Perhaps limiting a mods ability to moderate to a specific forum (US Politics, Canadian Politics, etc) or certain threads, which would allow them to participate elsewhere, while maintaining their little piece of the forum.

However, I am a strong proponent of freedom of speech, and I hate censorship - so even in a scenario above, severe restrictions should be imposed on the mods to ensure they don't remove unpopular opinions and or facts.

[WestCanMan]

On 2/17/2025 at 11:39 AM, User said:

Greg, I welcome your new ideas with titles here, but your implementation has been woefully lacking. I say this as constructive criticism. 

You came in strong, started changing stuff, sent this message out, and added the banner, but it seems like radio silence here ever since. 

If you do this, you will have to stick with it and change the culture here with consistent enforcement and requests for a bit. 

Do you send in the reports on those posts? 

[User]

22 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Do you send in the reports on those posts? 

Nope. I may have reported one thing one time, and it was when a particular poster said something so egregious here I asked if there was any decorum here at all, that crossed the line. 

 

[WestCanMan]

@Greg 

The thread title here is completely unsupported by the drivel in the OP, and anywhere else in the thread. 

The Exec Order is basically the same as the sedition laws that are currently on the books, but instead of criminalizing plots to attack the gov't it criminalizes the same type of activity against civilians, and it criminalizes the radicalization of civilians.

Merely having "Anti-American views" was not criminalized at all. People can still hate America all they want. Case in point: Ilhan Omar is still a member of congress.  It's just illegal to incite violence or promote hatred, as it should be. 

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

@Greg 

The thread title here is completely unsupported by the drivel in the OP, and anywhere else in the thread. 

The Exec Order is basically the same as the sedition laws that are currently on the books, but instead of criminalizing plots to attack the gov't it criminalizes the same type of activity against civilians, and it criminalizes the radicalization of civilians.

Merely having "Anti-American views" was not criminalized at all. People can still hate America all they want. Case in point: Ilhan Omar is still a member of congress.  It's just illegal to incite violence or promote hatred, as it should be. 

Time Magazine AND the OP CITE says YOU ARE WRONG.

White House Anti-Terror Order Targets ‘Anti-Capitalist’ and ‘Anti-American’ Views. Here’s What To Know

Quote

The Trump Administration is facing mounting criticism over a sweeping directive that expands the government’s definition of domestic terrorism indicators to include a wide range of political beliefs, with lawmakers and civil liberties groups warning it could be used to criminalize dissent.

The order, which directs the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) to investigate “networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence,” identifies ideological markers such as anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism and anti-Christianity as potential red flags. Rights groups say that language is so broad it risks sweeping in protest movements, advocacy organizations, and critics of the administration.

 

 

 

[The Tone]

Again, I'm new here. I guess I'm still waiting for a moderator to read my post. I thought it mentioned it might take a few hours. It's been about 8 hours now. Just posting this to see if the review period might actually be over.

[CareyA87]

On 2/11/2025 at 10:12 AM, NAME REMOVED said:

You lock a thread title of mine from 2 weeks ago, before even making any kind of announcement?  And then s**t on me in DM? Meanwhile, a loon like @gatomontes99 creates 200 garbage threads spamming the forum.  No wonder this is a haven for fascism.  If one is not MAGA, they are not welcome.

 

I'm gone. F**k you, Greg!

No need to be swearing.  So disrespectful.  Rules are rules.