Posting New Thread suggestions

[AZ-Tax]

I use the TTB message board among other sources for research. When I post, I always try to create a title that sums up the topic I am posting about and many other members do the same. This may end up being quite a long title. I don't know if TTB has a number of characters max in the title but I have not ran into yet. This really helps when I am searching. Just a suggestion.

[Koss]

Thread Titles

I always try to create a title that sums up the topic I am posting about and many other members do the same. This may end up being quite a long title.

Yes, but it isn't more interesting, and doesn't it pique your curiosity, when you see a new thread with a title that tells you absolutely nothing?

I love threads with titles like "New client question," or "How to handle this," or "Need assistance." [LMAO]

I am much more likely to open up and read those threads than I would for something like "Built-in gains tax," or "Electing Large Partnership," or "Orphan Drug Credit." Those topics are so far outside the scope of my practice that I probably have nothing to contribute to such a thread.

All kidding aside...

I tend to open up and read the threads with titles that lack any meaningful information, because they are indeed kind of a curiosity, and because... well, paradoxically, because other people tend to ignore them, they typically have few responses. So I start thinking, Hmmm... this one is from two days ago, with zero replies... okay, I'll take a look at it.

But apparently, my reverse psychology is... not the norm around here. I agree that descriptive titles are likely to get better responses.

BMK

[JohnH]

I like

this discussion

[Bees Knees]

Free Beer

This thread reminds me of the name we wanted to call our band in college. Imagine the sign in front of your local bar that reads: "Tonight, Free Beer, 9PM to 12:30AM."

[Burke]

Another suggestion.

1. Do not use the Title box in beginning your reply to a post. If someone wants to quote you, that part does not appear in the quote, sometimes rendering the meaning rather fuzzy.

2. It is not necessary to use the quote feature in every reply. I would suggest not doing this unless one wants to focus on a particular sentence or paragraph and delete all the rest of the original message. I often see (generally new users) use the quote feature every time they respond to a post. This makes for unnecessarily long threads.

[JohnH]

I agree

good suggestion

[AZ-Tax]

A thread similar to this was started couple yrs ago

Another suggestion.1. Do not use the Title box in beginning your reply to a post. If someone wants to quote you, that part does not appear in the quote, sometimes rendering the meaning rather fuzzy. 2. It is not necessary to use the quote feature in every reply. I would suggest not doing this unless one wants to focus on a particular sentence or paragraph and delete all the rest of the original message. I often see (generally new users) use the quote feature every time they respond to a post. This makes for unnecessarily long threads.

A couple years ago a thread got started with a similar topic. One of the replies from a board member requesting the Title of the post also be included in the body of the message.

[Gary2]

1. Do not use the Title box in beginning your reply to a post. If someone wants to quote you, that part does not appear in the quote, sometimes rendering the meaning rather fuzzy.

I quite agree. And especially don't use it for the first few words of a sentence; English punctuation doesn't allow for a paragraph break in the middle of a sentence (which makes it very difficult to read).

Besides, everyone remembers "It was the best of time, it was the worst of times" or "Call me Ishmael." Nobody remembers "The Period" or "Loomings." (I had to look those up; they're the respective chapter titles, if that's not obvious.)

2. It is not necessary to use the quote feature in every reply. I would suggest not doing this unless one wants to focus on a particular sentence or paragraph and delete all the rest of the original message.

On the other hand, I always read in linear mode. Sometimes people reply in a way that's difficult to understand unless you know specifically which one of the previous notes it's a direct reply to, which is ok in tree mode but not linear mode. I'm probably in the minority about using linear mode, but only because of settings inertia.

I also find skipping over quotes to be near automatic, so they don't contribute as much to the length of a post for me.

(And yes, sometimes a preposition is a word that it's ok to end a sentence with.)

[Black Bart]

Yes, but it isn't more interesting, and doesn't it pique your curiosity, when you see a new thread with a title that tells you absolutely nothing?... I am much more likely to open up and read those threads...with titles that lack any meaningful information..they are indeed kind of a curiosity...people tend to ignore them...typically have few responses. So I start thinking, Hmmm...zero replies...I'll take a look...

But apparently, my reverse psychology is... not the norm around here. I agree that descriptive titles are likely to get better responses. BMK

Well, you've got a little bit of company -- l like 'em too. Still, I can see why descriptive messages capture the curious (think I'll try one now -- reversing our reverse and being quite specific -- see thread above)

[RitaB]

It was a mistake

It was a mistake on another forum to title a thread "Repossession / Incorrect 1099-C." Until I personally messaged five people asking them to take a look, all I got was the resident know-it-all who knew nothing. But he knew it very loudly. I posted my question here, too, under a thread with a context clue. A lot of cricket sounds.

Let's face it: We are ALL sick to death of foreclosures and energy credits.

I am thinking you gotta be sneaky sometimes and say, "All women are yours" if you want people to look.

[Black Bart]

It was a mistake on another forum to title a thread "Repossession / Incorrect 1099-C." Until I personally messaged five people asking them to take a look, all I got was the resident know-it-all who knew nothing. But he knew it very loudly. I posted my question here, too, under a thread with a context clue. A lot of cricket sounds.

Let's face it: We are ALL sick to death of foreclosures and energy credits.

I am thinking you gotta be sneaky sometimes and say, "All women are yours" if you want people to look.

I thought so, but maybe not .

[RitaB]

Timing is everything

I thought so, but maybe not .

It was the weekend and some people have a life. (Not me.) Give it a couple days.

[RitaB]

Cricket, cricket

It was the weekend and some people have a life. (Not me.) Give it a couple days.

Ok, maybe not. Hahaha.

[Gary2]

It was a mistake on another forum to title a thread "Repossession / Incorrect 1099-C." Until I personally messaged five people asking them to take a look, all I got was the resident know-it-all who knew nothing.

Perhaps the mistake was posting in a forum with exactly one know-it-all, instead of here (where there are either 0 or several such, but I have no opinion as to which ).

In any event, part of the benefit of a good thread title is helping people find it through searching, or revisit it later. Like many, I'll often read thread with uninformative titles when they're first posted, but I'm more likely to avoid revisiting them to see newer replies - unless I can somehow remember what it was about.

[RitaB]

Well, that was profound

Perhaps the mistake was posting in a forum with exactly one know-it-all, instead of here (where there are either 0 or several such, but I have no opinion as to which ).

In any event, part of the benefit of a good thread title is helping people find it through searching, or revisit it later. Like many, I'll often read thread with uninformative titles when they're first posted, but I'm more likely to avoid revisiting them to see newer replies - unless I can somehow remember what it was about.

Ah ha! Yes, that's a good point, we need a context clue for searching purposes. Now, why didn't I think of that? Ok, I'm on board now. And I did post it here. Pay attention.