Join 3,551 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

Tags:

Character length limit on titles?
January 23, 2013 7:26 AM   Subscribe

Sorry if this is covered in an early titles post, but is there a character length limit on titles? Twice this week I've seen FPPs on the blue that have had their titles (otherwise) unaccountably truncated in mid-word . This is the first one I noticed, and then this morning there was this one. Just curious.
posted by hwestiii to Bugs at 7:26 AM (116 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

There is a character limit...72 I think?

When you type in the title bar for a new post, it stops letting you type after a certain point. Is the cutoff in the editing box longer than the real life cutoff? Or are people just not paying attention when their finger clicking stops making words?
posted by phunniemee at 7:34 AM on January 23, 2013


Or are people just not paying attention when their finger clicking stops making words?

Pretty sure that if you're copying and pasting the title there's no indication that it will be cut off.
posted by lalex at 7:36 AM on January 23, 2013


Yeah, there's a new 72-character limit on titles that we implemented recently to help keep them more predictable in length and hence visual footprint. There's a limit in the input box itself as well so if you're typing the title it should be sort of obvious when you hit that mark, but I think in these cases posters must be copying and pasting and not realizing that they're truncating their title in the process.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:36 AM on January 23, 2013


Perhaps a note near the field would be a good idea? Or a character counter?
posted by zarq at 7:39 AM on January 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


Or just some simple validation.
posted by Artw at 7:41 AM on January 23, 2013 [5 favorites]


Or perhaps the box could be lengthened so as to be able to see all 72 characters?

[hobbyhorse] Also, the length should be at least 100 characters [/hobbyhorse]
posted by Chrysostom at 7:43 AM on January 23, 2013 [3 favorites]


Artw: "Or just some simple validation."

I like you, Artw!
posted by ShawnStruck at 7:43 AM on January 23, 2013 [38 favorites]


You're a good enough poster, artw. And smart enough. And doggone it, people like you.
posted by zarq at 7:43 AM on January 23, 2013 [8 favorites]


jinx, ShawnStruck
posted by zarq at 7:44 AM on January 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


Or just some simple validation.

You dress well and are an inspiration to the kids!
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:46 AM on January 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


If you can read this, you exist!
posted by iamkimiam at 7:54 AM on January 23, 2013 [17 favorites]


Or just some simple validation.

First, finish your code and make sure it's fully commented.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:55 AM on January 23, 2013 [4 favorites]


Or just some simple validation.

Right, but there's currently no way to enter more than 72 characters into the field. So it's not like we can warn people that the title is too long. The title is perfectly valid, they're just not seeing that their paste has been truncated by the field itself.
posted by pb (staff) at 8:06 AM on January 23, 2013 [2 favorites]


A warning near the input field / 100 character limit would be nice.
posted by DoubleLune at 8:11 AM on January 23, 2013


I like unpredictable titles. :(
posted by boo_radley at 8:13 AM on January 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


pb: "So it's not like we can warn people that the title is too long."

So... when we create posts, the site warns us if something needs to be looked at/corrected. "You forgot to add a title." "You haven't entered any tags." "You have a broken link." Is it possible to create a notice when the field is full and contains 72 characters? "Your title is at the 72 character limit. Please check to make sure nothing has been cut off."
posted by zarq at 8:13 AM on January 23, 2013 [14 favorites]


Me too boo_radley. It's a gas, baby. Like that time that guy was writing on the wall and died, you know, "Castle aaaargh" except not at all but simular all the same.
posted by Mister_A at 8:14 AM on January 23, 2013


I view the truncated titles as being akin to the old 50's TV shows which end on a cliff-hanger to be continued next week post.

Not that I would recommend that people start doing that, it would be anno...
posted by arcticseal at 8:16 AM on January 23, 2013


ying
posted by arcticseal at 8:16 AM on January 23, 2013


Or people could check the preview?
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:17 AM on January 23, 2013 [5 favorites]


Is it possible to create a notice when the field is full and contains 72 characters? "Your title is at the 72 character limit. Please check to make sure nothing has been cut off."

Honestly,I don’t see what the big deal is. Either people are going to pr
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:20 AM on January 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


ance or not
posted by elizardbits at 8:22 AM on January 23, 2013 [16 favorites]


I have a solution!

And it has been more than 16 minutes!
posted by zarq at 8:25 AM on January 23, 2013 [2 favorites]


The OP of the first linked FFP was aware of the cut-off:

I saw that the title cut it off in the preview, but I decided it fit with the madness of the puppies and left it.

I would guess that some people will be using the new parameters as a feature, not a bug.
posted by cooker girl at 8:25 AM on January 23, 2013


Remember that time whatsername asked if she should eat that thr
posted by Mister_A at 8:26 AM on January 23, 2013


ance or not

EXACTLY. So when people are busy ancing or not as they preview their pos
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:27 AM on January 23, 2013


ts, one has reason to ask, "what is a thrance anyway? And where might one cr
posted by Mister_A at 8:34 AM on January 23, 2013


" Is it possible to create a notice when the field is full and contains 72 characters? "Your title is at the 72 character limit. Please check to make sure nothing has been cut off."

Oops, no, it's not - as PB points out when an text input has a maximum length set and you paste beyond that it just silently snips it off, do there's no way to tell - validation would see the max length, a character counter would report 0 characters to spare etc...
posted by Artw at 8:40 AM on January 23, 2013


No, what I mean is, is it possible to put up a note on the preview page if the site detects that your character count in that field was zero.
posted by zarq at 8:41 AM on January 23, 2013


eate one? a laboratory, perhaps? or should I find a good v
posted by Rory Marinich at 8:41 AM on January 23, 2013


elociraptor to unleash upon this thread and render everything moot? I could get one for you wh
posted by Diagonalize at 8:42 AM on January 23, 2013 [3 favorites]


I just thought those posters were talking about Candlejack when they posted th
posted by Twain Device at 8:43 AM on January 23, 2013


Just out of curiosity, why 72? Why not 75, or 60, or even the 100 characters that some folks want? Was 72 the average of all the mods input on optimal title length or does it have some other mystical property that I don't know about?
posted by TedW at 8:44 AM on January 23, 2013


Just out of curiosity, why 72?

Because that length works well across various devices where screen space is limited, and 96% of titles ever posted to MetaFilter (without the limit) fell within 72 characters. We felt it if there was going to be a limit, 72 was a reasonable limit.
posted by pb (staff) at 8:48 AM on January 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


72 was a good number when we were testing title length on the mobile site at the default sizes. Above that, titles wrapped to three lines consistently and the number 72 is an old standard for email line length (coincidence) but 75-80 was a bit too much, 70 still had some room, so 72.

And yeah, we could either widen the title field so you can see pasted in text gets cut off, and/or we could put up a warning if you hit exactly 72 characters to double-check the title.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:49 AM on January 23, 2013


Just out of curiosity, why 72?

If you read it backwards, it's 27, who's mystical root is the number 9, which is an upside '6'.

So yeah, it's the sign of the devil.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:54 AM on January 23, 2013 [8 favorites]


Or just some simple validation.

You thought about it. You are. Congratulations.
posted by MuffinMan at 8:58 AM on January 23, 2013


I wonder when the right time would be to confess that I always read "titles" as "titties" in these recent threads about them.

Whoops.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:59 AM on January 23, 2013 [4 favorites]


I do the same thing actually, Burhanistan. Keeps things lively.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:02 AM on January 23, 2013 [4 favorites]


If you need more than 72 characters to describe your post, you're doing it wrong.
posted by Curious Artificer at 9:10 AM on January 23, 2013


ProTip: You can change 'Dope-Ass' to 'DopeAss' to save a character.
posted by Mister_A at 9:11 AM on January 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


Also: titty sprinkles.
posted by Curious Artificer at 9:12 AM on January 23, 2013 [3 favorites]


I suppose one approach would be to let the entry field accept more than 72 characters, so that a truncation warning can happen. The aborted titles don't really bother me, though.
posted by ceribus peribus at 9:20 AM on January 23, 2013


Won't this B a g8way 2 annoying abbreviations?
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:21 AM on January 23, 2013


Show us your titles!
posted by Devils Rancher at 9:25 AM on January 23, 2013 [8 favorites]


Is it possible to create a notice when the field is full and contains 72 characters?

Since messing with crufty, over-complicated technical solutions is my favorite form of procrastination -- it's actually possible with javascript to specifically create a notice when someone pastes 72 or more characters. Here's a proof of concept:
$('#link_title').bind('paste', function () {
  var element = $(this);
  setTimeout(function () {
    if(element.val().length==element.attr('maxlength') && !$('#paste_warning').length)       element.after("<span id='#paste_warning'>Warning: Your pasted title may have been too long.</span>");
  }, 0);
});
This has been thoroughly tested in whatever version of Chrome I'm running and seems to work fine. The only limitation is that there will also be a warning if you paste exactly 72 characters and nothing is truncated -- all javascript can tell is that after you pasted something, you were at the length limit.
posted by jhc at 9:26 AM on January 23, 2013 [5 favorites]


How about changing the text on that box from
Give a short, descriptive title. Please boil your question/post to a single sentence.
to
Give a short, descriptive title. It cannot be more than 72 characters. Please boil your question/post to a single sentence.
?
posted by Etrigan at 9:29 AM on January 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


Show us your titles!

I remain the most Serene and most Puissant Princess and Lady, ocherdraco the First, of famous Memory, elected Roman Empress, always August, Queen of Germany, Hungary, Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Arch-Duchess of Austria, Duchess of Burgundy, Brabant, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, Marquise of Moravia, Duchess of Luxemburgh, the Higher and Lower Silesia, of Wirtemburg and Teck, Princess of Suabia, Countess of Hapsburg, Tirol, Kyburg and Goritia, Marquise of the Sacred Roman Empire, Ladt of Burgovia, of the Higher and Lower Lusace, of the Marquisate of Slavonia, of Port Naon and Salines, with my Allies and Adherents.
posted by ocherdraco at 9:33 AM on January 23, 2013 [13 favorites]


Both posts were by the same user. The problem isn't the title field. It's quin.
posted by mokin at 9:33 AM on January 23, 2013 [4 favorites]


This is all about honoring our history!

Wikipedia on Characters Per Line:

At the end of the typewriter age, most designs were geared toward 72 CPL (characters per line), derived from a pitch of 12 characters per inch, multiplied by 6 inches (see for example IBM Selectric). This would ensure at least 1 inch for each margin, with the U.S. government at the time having standardized on 8 1/2×11" paper. Early computer text editors used this measure as a baseline for their terminal interfaces.
posted by Kabanos at 9:37 AM on January 23, 2013 [7 favorites]


I remain the most Serene and most Puissant Princess and Lady, (...)

Haught!
posted by Devils Rancher at 9:39 AM on January 23, 2013 [4 favorites]


ocherdraco: "I remain the"

...holder of the sacred chalice of Rixx...
posted by zarq at 9:41 AM on January 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


"titles" as "titties"

SO FUCKING GLAD IT'S NOT JUST ME
posted by Greg Nog at 9:41 AM on January 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


His Imperial and Royal Majesty William the Second is not amused.
posted by adamvasco at 9:47 AM on January 23, 2013


We made the title field (and other text fields) a little longer so it'll be more clear your title is truncated when you paste something longer in. We also added a note about the 72 character maximum for the title field.

I like the jQuery at the maximum warning after a paste that jhc mentioned. We currently don't do any sort of client side validation like that, and we'd need to make sure it works across a bunch of different browsers, so it's something we can keep in mind down the road if/when we revisit how we handle validation.
posted by pb (staff) at 9:48 AM on January 23, 2013


Wait wait wait. First you add titles and NOW you add some weird-ass berserko feature that lets people know WHEN THE TITLE IS TOO LONG?
posted by Mister_A at 9:59 AM on January 23, 2013


Added visibility of the titles on the front page, you mean. Titles have been on posts for years.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:02 AM on January 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


To be clear Mister_A, since the launch of titles on the front page, you couldn't type more than 72 characters into the title field. The only edge case is where someone pastes in a huge string of text and didn't notice it was cut off on the preview page (the shorter visual width of the title form element hid the end characters until just now).
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:03 AM on January 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


Though to be fair, when the front page display was introduced, the title of said post was "MeFi is adding titles."
posted by ocherdraco at 10:04 AM on January 23, 2013 [2 favorites]


SO FUCKING GLAD IT'S NOT JUST ME

Alright, stand down everyone, the plan worked, we found the pervy perv.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:06 AM on January 23, 2013 [3 favorites]


Maybe take a page out of twitter's book and show a countdown of the characters for titles?
posted by royalsong at 10:12 AM on January 23, 2013 [3 favorites]


Ahh I could see how that would be a problem, mathowie. For the record I support things that make stuff like MetaFilter easier to use or less ambiguous.
posted by Mister_A at 10:14 AM on January 23, 2013


I like titles.
posted by seanmpuckett at 10:26 AM on January 23, 2013


If you need more than 72 characters to describe your post, you're doing it wrong.

Not necessarily. That's our technical limit right now, but it's not like it's heaven-ordained. Especially when people used quotations for titles, "doing it right" could take you beyond that limit.
posted by Miko at 10:42 AM on January 23, 2013


This whole comment thread is so much more amusing when you replace "titles" with "titties" in every instance.

I thought it was just me, too.
posted by jillithd at 10:44 AM on January 23, 2013


Curious Artificer: "doing it wrong"

Well, as long as you assert it, it must be so.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:48 AM on January 23, 2013


I think the solution is to set a input size of 73 and then use a combination of JS & Serverside to throw a hissy if the length is greater than 72. Also indicate the 72 limit in the input with something like

3 characters left
posted by Deathalicious at 11:06 AM on January 23, 2013


I thought it was style in both those cases. I am saddened the answer is mundane.
posted by cjorgensen at 11:12 AM on January 23, 2013


Honestly, I like the truncated titles. They make me shiver with antici
posted by Splunge at 11:23 AM on January 23, 2013 [3 favorites]


... WAIT FOR IT ...
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:26 AM on January 23, 2013 [5 favorites]


mathowie: "72 was a good number when we were testing title length on the mobile site at the default sizes. Above that, titles wrapped to three lines consistently and the number 72 is an old standard for email line length (coincidence) but 75-80 was a bit too much, 70 still had some room, so 72."

Is it possible to adjust the mobile stylesheet to use a smaller default font for titles rather than restrict the character count for everyone sitewide?
posted by zarq at 11:30 AM on January 23, 2013


Is it possible to adjust the mobile stylesheet to use a smaller default font for titles rather than restrict the character count for everyone sitewide?

It's not really something we're planning on doing, no. There are already a host of compromises that we're making trying to make the site look decent on mobile and desktop machines. I know it's frustrating to be way off on one side of the bell curve with this (I am as well, many of my titles wouldn't make the cut) but we're trying to stick to the 72 character limit for now.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:37 AM on January 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


"...75-80 was a bit too much, 70 still had some room, so 72."
"And the Lord spake, saying, 'First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shalt be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thou foe, who being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.'"
posted by terrapin at 11:43 AM on January 23, 2013


Just out of curiosity, why 72?

80 columns on a Hollerith card − 7 columns for POST_ID − 1 column reserved for 'Comment' indicator = leaves 72 columns for the title text.

That's how computers work, right?
posted by benito.strauss at 11:58 AM on January 23, 2013 [5 favorites]


"titles" as "titties"
Yeah me too. it's good to see that bigger isn't necessarily better with titles as well.
posted by dg at 12:01 PM on January 23, 2013


So yeah, it's the sign of the devil.

Just like the ratio 2/3. It's .666, but forever...
posted by filthy light thief at 12:12 PM on January 23, 2013


jessamyn: "...but we're trying to stick to the 72 character limit for now."

OK. Thanks for considering it.
posted by zarq at 12:16 PM on January 23, 2013


In related news, I recently discovered that there's a character limit in the About section of your profile page.

Actually, it's so huge that the word 'limit' doesn't really cover it. All I know about it is you can enter an unmeasured buttload of Grade-A text into that box.
posted by item at 12:19 PM on January 23, 2013 [2 favorites]


Kittens become comatose with a modicum of assistance.
posted by y2karl at 12:30 PM on January 23, 2013


It's not really something we're planning on doing, no. There are already a host of compromises that we're making trying to make the site look decent on mobile and desktop machines. I know it's frustrating to be way off on one side of the bell curve with this (I am as well, many of my titles wouldn't make the cut) but we're trying to stick to the 72 character limit for now.

If the compromises are causing trouble, it might be time to give up and switch to a mobile app with a distinct style as the main mobile experience so each could be truly optimized. I say this as someone who generally opposes that sort of thing, I love what a good job you guys have done with the mobile experience.

If titles are going to become a prominent part of a site like Metafilter, the most prominently displayed part of a post, I think allowing them to be at least the length of a Tweet is probably a good idea.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:34 PM on January 23, 2013


If the compromises are causing trouble

We don't actually consider this trouble at this point. We've definitely tossed around the idea of a mobile app and it's not out of the question but not in the immediate game plan. What is somewhat tricky is making sure that the site works across all known browser/platform combinations. That pb manages to make this work is nothing short of a miracle. So, we appreciate your suggestions, but this will probably not be the thing that kicks us over to the make-an-app stage of our mobile plan.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:57 PM on January 23, 2013 [2 favorites]


If you're going to have site behavior that sometimes sucks, sucking on titles is the best.
posted by zippy at 1:09 PM on January 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


Just out of curiosity, why 72? Why not 75, or 60, or even the 100 characters that some folks want? Was 72 the average of all the mods input on optimal title length or does it have some other mystical property that I don't know about?

Google results display a maximum of 72 characters for page titles in search results.
posted by KokuRyu at 1:16 PM on January 23, 2013


Metafilter: The Itty Bitty Titles Club
posted by DaddyNewt at 1:51 PM on January 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


...pation
posted by you must supply a verb at 1:52 PM on January 23, 2013 [6 favorites]


Hey!
posted by Splunge at 2:20 PM on January 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


sorry! i waited and waited and waited but I just couldn
posted by you must supply a verb at 2:46 PM on January 23, 2013 [3 favorites]


Just like the ratio 2/3. It's .666, but forever...
I like this
posted by 5_13_23_42_69_666 at 4:27 PM on January 23, 2013


I don't think anything else I've ever posted has generated this sort of response. Who knew string formatting could be so controversial?
posted by hwestiii at 4:40 PM on January 23, 2013


(can't wait 'til he discovers how controversial the little + symbol can be...assuredly another mind blown)
posted by iamkimiam at 4:48 PM on January 23, 2013


Who knew string formatting could be so controversial?

The phenomenon even has a name: bike-shedding.
posted by benito.strauss at 5:14 PM on January 23, 2013


Yeah, there's a new 72-character limit on titles that we implemented recently to help keep them more predictable in length and hence visual footprint.

You know what would *actually* be predictable in length and hence visual footprint? A zero-character limit.

This would also prevent posts from being deleted for their titles and then reposted with identical content, resulting in a thread that is half, "We just talked about this."
posted by Sys Rq at 6:19 PM on January 23, 2013 [3 favorites]


That's probably a post-dooming title with or without visible titles on the homepage, TBH.
posted by Artw at 6:22 PM on January 23, 2013


Yes. But not if it were zero characters long.
posted by Sys Rq at 6:24 PM on January 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


What If There Weren't Titles At All is well into quixotic territory and in any case fails to acknowledge the amazing flexibility mefites have historically displayed in finding ways to doom their own posts.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:20 PM on January 23, 2013


Yep, a lot would depend on how you counted the number of characters. I tried to make a blank comment once and the best I could do was "&nbsp;", but someone claimed to have done better. These comments, needless to say, are almost impossible to search for.
posted by benito.strauss at 8:15 PM on January 23, 2013


Brandon Blatcher: "If you read it backwards, it's 27, who's mystical root is the number 9, which is an upside '6'.

So yeah, it's the sign of the devil.
"

And I was the sixth person to favourite this comment. Dun dun dun!
posted by deborah at 8:16 PM on January 23, 2013


On my phone, when a text doesn't quite fit, I go and remove the second space after each period, leaving only one,
even though I know it's wrong to do.     This might be something to keep in mind if you need to shorten a title.
posted by fritley at 9:02 PM on January 23, 2013


What If There Weren't Titles At All is well into quixotic territory

Quixotic means stubbornly idealistic without practicality; that's your side, I'm afraid. The reasons for not having/not displaying titles outnumber the reasons for having/displaying them; it would be trivial to remove them altogether from future posts, especially compared to periodically rekajiggering them so they're user-friendly. I'm really not seeing any downside to just getting rid of them.

and in any case fails to acknowledge the amazing flexibility mefites have historically displayed in finding ways to doom their own posts.

"The world has many problems, therefore solving any individual problem is not worthwhile."
posted by Sys Rq at 9:06 PM on January 23, 2013 [3 favorites]


Woah, I never considered the option of doing away with titles entirely. Sys Rq, you are blowing my mind over here.

Down with titles! Down with titles! Rabblerabblerabblerabble!
posted by Scientist at 10:48 PM on January 23, 2013


Apparently Metafilter was rewritten in fixed-format FORTRAN.
posted by indubitable at 5:14 AM on January 24, 2013


Sys Rq: " I'm really not seeing any downside to just getting rid of them."

Well, they're helpful for the RSS feed. And I believe they help with SEO, particularly for Ask, which Matt obviously has an interest in.

Quixotic means stubbornly idealistic without practicality; that's your side, I'm afraid.

Titles have been on posts for TEN years now. And the site owner seems to think they bring value. So, while it may be practical to remove them altogether, it seems exceedingly unlikely. That seems to fit within the common understanding of quixotic.
posted by Chrysostom at 5:38 AM on January 24, 2013 [1 favorite]


Validation that cannot be done by machine -- that is, the machine can't tell if your entry is valid to a human being or not -- is the kind of little interface problem that, generally speaking, leads to two solutions that "work."

One is the complex approach: in this case, for instance, you could allow unlimited text entry, but provide a client-side running tally of character count/maximum character limit below it, like "14 of 72" or "58 characters remaining" (as Deathalicious suggest above.) Turn the tally bold and red if their typing/pasting pushes it past th stated maximum, to get their attention. Don't let them submit if the character count is too high. Zarq's suggestion above is similar, where there is no message until they exceed the limit, then you allow the characters but suppress submission and message "NO YOU FOOL."

The other is the simple approach: you limit the number of characters that can be entered, but you allow users to go back and edit it post-submit, when they notice their mistake.

So: character limit and edit window for FPP posts, or write something to provide real-time feedback when the limit is exceeded and block submission until the issue is corrected. Anything else will be sub-par.
posted by davejay at 8:26 AM on January 24, 2013


...you limit the number of characters that can be entered, but you allow users to go back and edit it post-submit, when they notice their mistake.

We currently have a post preview. They could notice the mistake there.
posted by pb (staff) at 8:29 AM on January 24, 2013


but you allow users to go back and edit it post-submit, when they notice their mistake.

'Round these parts, that's called the contact form, I believe.
posted by radwolf76 at 8:39 AM on January 24, 2013


        
posted by y2karl at 9:17 AM on January 24, 2013 [2 favorites]


"the amazing flexibility mefites have historically displayed in finding ways to doom their own posts."
posted by cortex

Is there a list? Please let there be a list.
posted by marienbad at 11:17 AM on January 24, 2013 [1 favorite]


mokin : The problem isn't the title field. It's quin.

You have no idea how true this statement is.

And yeah, I was cutting and pasting, and not paying nearly enough attention on the second one. So while the first one was (maybe) defensible, the second just reveals me to be an idiot.

I'll endeavor to be less of an idiot going forward, but you know, no promises. I like to think it's part of my charm, or at the very least, part of the reasons I get avoided on the street.

(well, that and the sort of feral appearance of someone who was raised by wolves.)
posted by quin at 11:18 AM on January 24, 2013


roofus wins this argument.
posted by Etrigan at 12:43 PM on January 24, 2013 [1 favorite]


Etrigan: "roofus wins this argument."

Great. Now people are just fucking around with it. See also this.

And then there's this. What is that? A subtitle?

And three active Meta threads. What a mess.
posted by Big_B at 2:08 PM on January 24, 2013 [1 favorite]


MetaFilter tends to be messy, but that's not always a bad thing.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:25 PM on January 24, 2013


This would also prevent posts from being deleted for their titles and then reposted with identical content, resulting in a thread that is half, "We just talked about this."

The repost had roughly as many one line comments about tweed as it did comments mentioning the repost/"we just talked about this". Somehow I don't think that's advancing your argument well.
posted by hoyland at 5:51 PM on January 25, 2013


72? Even Twitter gives 140.
posted by IndigoRain at 9:09 PM on January 25, 2013 [1 favorite]


Twitter gives photos too, you want that sort of riffraff around here.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:40 PM on January 25, 2013


72? Even Twitter gives 140.

On Twitter, the 140 character tweet is the entire message. On MetaFilter, you have a title and the post text. The title is 72 characters, and then you have as many characters as you need in the post text. If you had to communicate your entire post within the title, I can see the argument for expanding it. But there's a lot of space to work with after the title.
posted by pb (staff) at 10:48 PM on January 25, 2013 [1 favorite]


Twitter gives photos too, you want that sort of riffraff around here.

Yes!

Tweets can link to longer messages too, but the tweet/title is the main thing people will skim unless they click through to see the meat. That was what was nice about classic Metafilter, the way the information was presented encouraged you to engage with the meat of the message.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:39 AM on January 27, 2013


« Older Can we move the music player t...  |  We have clouds for the top 150... Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments