Our feelings towards elaborate thread titles

More and more often I come across a sentence or title that catches my eyes immediately using words like definitive, absolute and 100%.
It's a real treat, cause at that moment I can feel my synapses firing like were they in the midst of a gunbattle in a 1800s western town.

So ofcourse my hands rush with an eager click to enter the thread in the hope that finally the day of disclosure has come, that somehow the powers that be messed up and instead of putting the a4 grocery list in his folder some poor smuck mistook the topsecret government document for this list and shortly after dropped that folder somewhere public.

But what for so long has avoided my eyes, maybe because I too want to see something specific, is that nice sign called "question mark" at the end creating a question.
Normally one would start out with "Is this...", "Are these..." or "Could it be that...", but these nice clarifications of the thread posing a question rather than a revelation have somehow ceased to exist.

More and more often I go out lead to believe that I'm going to eat a nice steak tonight, but so many times I end up sinking my teeth into cheeseburger from McD.

Although that I am one for free speech, I can't help feeling that this creative use of it misleads me and over time ultimately sucks the energy from me making me lose hope or interest.

Do I stand totally alone if I would like to open for the discussion of "proper" thread presentation? After all isn't this what we are trying to guard ourselves against... sensationalism and numbification through overexposure. To make sure that we always are on our toes.
One day we might end up with something catching us by surprise or go by unnoticed because the word "wolf" has been uttered too many times.

Just a thought...

[edit on 23/2/08 by flice]

Wolf! Wolf ! Just kidding.

Yeah, I agree.

I'm a sucker for all those titled thread starters. I click 'em right away!

Were all one click away from .....

I agree with the OP. I try to remain true to myself and fellow members by adding a question mark unless I am reporting something completely factual. It is great to be passionate about your theory, it is quite another to present theory as fact. Take note cheez-titlers!

[edit on 2/23/0808 by jackinthebox]

1) Thread titles should contain the truth and not exagerate it.

2) Thread titles should be checked for spelling errors so the outside world dont think we're morons.

In agreement as well
Even though I was guilty of it when I put up my first Thread

but i fixed it...
side note:
Would love to see more Threads on how we can work together on things, too try to improve on something, rather than argue over things as much as it is done on here
Let's face it, if we spent half as much time trying to figure out a Free Energy solution or a better way to capture a UFO image... we would probably be way ahead of the game
All i'm sayin is way too much arguing... not enough ingenuity and cooperation
and I can tell there are some pretty bright people on ATS
sorry just my 2 cents...
I apologize for my earlier statement and had to re-think what I wanted to convey


[edit on 23-2-2008 by Numb2itall]

I think that these sensationalist thread titles are in general against the T&C of this site.

By becoming a member of these domains, you agree to the following:

1). Posting: You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.

When a poster states in the title 100% proof or Definite or Absolute you immediately think that there are down to earth facts available but too often the poster negates the thread title and posts the second hand or hearsay data that fails miserably to live up to the expectations given by the title of the thread.

I know of one member in particular that does this on a regular basis. This member (of whom I will not name) uses these terms often in the titles of their posts just in my opinion to generate posts and page views. The threads themselves and the information is suspect at best and Bull Dung at worst.

In my opinion the title itself is against the T&C of this site and the repeated bull that this poster exhibits should merit the potential banning of this individual.

We should be here to uncover the truth not to sensationalize obscure references, general theory, and just pure fantasy. We are here for the intelligent discussion of alternative topics. As such we need to remember that not all facts are available but we should not want to discredit a theory because the title is honest. This goes in hand with the meat and potatoes of the post itself and not the title. The title is a garnish for the meal of the post. But it is the post itself that we need to digest and gain mental nourishment from. You can dress up garbage all you want but when you sit down to it it's still garbage.

We need to ourselves the members of this site uphold ourselves to a higher standard. and disregard those sensationalist post titles that the meat of the thread bases no merit on. Perhaps some title of a thread does not grab your attention right away. Read what they have to say. Perhaps they have more of a meal for your mind than the title suggests.

This is just my 2c

Wukky

The title of this thread is misleading.

I obviously surmised an executive summary of findings resembling "our" feelings (to within a confidence level of at least 90 percent [

Show me some examples of this please... You do realize we have an "alert button" on every post don't you? That's all that is required to get these "misleading titles" corrected.

Another option is to use the "complaint button" which alerts all the staff members online to the title in question.

I have changed a few titles over the years, but I have not seen very many titles here on ATS that fit your description in comparison to the huge number of posts created everyday here (4,000+ daily). Naturally, I could be missing them but if they are in the Aliens/UFO forum I doubt it unless it's been during the past seven days.

Please post some links here in this thread.

Springer...

reply to post by Springer


Thankyou Springer! Couldn't have said it better.

Could the OP Please cite Examples?

~Ducky~



[edit on 24-2-2008 by TheDuckster]

reply to post by Springer


Okay, the next 2 fit your question perfectly - the 2 after that are close enough for my taste. And the only reason I clicked on THIS thread was because the title stated OUR which mislead me into believing that it was something being posted by the Administration of ATS - so I would like to slap the hand of the OP for THAT title also -

100% PROOF of Controlled Demolitions @ WTC
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Nasa images show Absolute proof of Life on Mars. Huge cities
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Stargates are real
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Same with this
Channel Ten Australia is controlled by the Illuminati

reply to post by JustTheFacts


The "Stargates" material is well researched. It is a theory.

And the title says nothing about it being "100%" or anything sensational.

Originally posted by JustTheFacts
reply to post by Springer

 

Nasa images show Absolute proof of Life on Mars. Huge cities
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This example was the worst one I've seen. "Absolute proof" of rocks on Mars!

reply to post by flice


I have to agree with you on the sensationalistic terms used in thread titles, but when faced with titling a thread most have to make a decision as to how they can get members to atleast give 5 minutes of their time to view the theories held by yourself or the relevant poster. Some are a little over the top like this one, Green Levitating Elephants once ruled this planet.....!!, still puzzles me how the OP got away with it.

[edit on 2-3-2008 by Koka]