Even though most of us agree with your opinions on a submission, editoralising a title is not ideal as the discussion about the submission will be largely based of your editorialised title rather than the actual contents of the link submitted.
There is also the possibility that not everyone agrees with your particular opinion, and the submission is getting upvoted or downvoted based on whether people like/dislike your opinion on the matter.
There's a simple fix to this problem: Post the article's original title as the submission's title and your own comments/opinions on it in the comment section.
It's a lot better if we have a standardised posting format when it comes to submitting content to keep in line with Reddiquette in regard to new submissions.
Hi everyone,
A quick reminder - please don't editorialise your headlines. If your headline is not the same as the news article or found within the text of the article, it may be removed.
Cheers!
One of your friendly neighbourhood mods,
iheartralph.
We only have about 7 or 6 rules but we do expect people to follow them. We've had to remove far too many important and often breaking news stories because the titles look nothing like the ones on the site it links to. This is not just a sub rule, it is part of the site-wide reddiquette (which you can find linked in the sidebar and at the bottom of every page on reddit).
Here are the rules
-
Racism, as well as xenophobia, homophobia and other forms of bigotry will not be tolerated.
-
Personal attacks that add nothing to the conversation will be removed.
-
Infographics which are poorly sourced will be removed. The submitter must provide the source in the comments, including a brief explanation if necessary, soon after making the submission.
-
Image macros and memes will be removed.
-
Please do not spam the subreddit, this includes engaging in a campaign to promote a website, whether your own or someone else's, and attempting to use the subreddit as a platform for narrow political activism, especially on a contentious issue. In particular, if this involves an attempt to band-wagon the forum, by calling for support from other subreddits or websites.
-
This is a moderated forum, to maintain a civil environment, and a high level of debate. We reserve the right to actively moderate the subreddit as is reasonable, to achieve those aims.
-
In order to maintain a high level of discussion and debate, without regression to easily understandable 'jokes' which add little to the conversation, comments which consist exclusively or largely of gifs or images shall be removed.
There's also two community guidelines,
1.We request that users who post non-English articles also post a translation (even if just a machine translation) to help the forum engage with the post. However, this is only a request, and posts will not be removed for this reason.
2.Please use the upvote/downvote to mark interesting content, rather than agreement/disagreement. We encourage engaging civil criticism instead of downvoting an unpopular opinion.
Most users most of them time stick to these fine, but it seems that given a rise in the number of people making increasingly large numbers of minor infringements (especially editorialising and rule 7) and that the New Year is nearly upon us, we should all just take a couple of moments to familiarise ourself with any changes that might of happened to them since you last read them.
Easy! Just comment straight away on the article like old mate u-Leadback to push your anti-Lib, anti-everything agenda.
I can't wait for the dinosaurs in power to die off so that people like me can restore this country's reputation and save the millions of people living in poverty in Sydney's western suburbs thanks to corporate take hikes.
Who is with me? Upvotes to the left.
Greetings Tenno!
The Disallowed Post Titles rule has been updated to include editorialised titles in link posts. The full rule is as follows:
>* If a link post leads to an article or video, the title of your post must either match the title of the linked source, or a direct quote contained within it.
>* A post may be removed at our discretion if its title uses a direct quote that is found to be inherently biased or placed out of context.
>* An exception will be made for fluff posts.
This change comes to help reduce clickbait on the submission end of things and to provide you with a more informed browsing experience.
I don't want to step on anybody's toes here, but the amount of non-dad jokes here in this subreddit really annoys me. First of all, dad jokes CAN be NSFW, it clearly says so in the sub rules. Secondly, it doesn't automatically make it a dad joke if it's from a conversation between you and your child. Most importantly, the jokes that your CHILDREN tell YOU are not dad jokes. The point of a dad joke is that it's so cheesy only a dad who's trying to be funny would make such a joke. That's it. They are stupid plays on words, lame puns and so on. There has to be a clever pun or wordplay for it to be considered a dad joke.
Again, to all the fellow dads, I apologise if I'm sounding too harsh. But I just needed to get it off my chest.
Do your worst!
I'm surprised it hasn't decade.
For context I'm a Refuse Driver (Garbage man) & today I was on food waste. After I'd tipped I was checking the wagon for any defects when I spotted a lone pea balanced on the lifts.
I said "hey look, an escaPEA"
No one near me but it didn't half make me laugh for a good hour or so!
Edit: I can't believe how much this has blown up. Thank you everyone I've had a blast reading through the replies 😂
It really does, I swear!
Because she wanted to see the task manager.
As per the suggestion from a mod in the thread, I have created a meta-post to discuss the editorialised title of the post linked below, and the claim by the mods that it did not break the sub’s rules:
I would argue this is a clear cut example of rule breaking, specifically, Rule 5: Law of Editorialized Titles. Not only does it expressly break the letter of that law, it breaks the general sentiment of the sub with language that is deliberately misleading and emotive. The initial post title was:
”Rochester Police now allowed to cover up name tags after Black Lives Matter rioters and protesters share the addresses and names of their children.”
And the article title was:
”Mayor Warren, city council hold briefing on police operations”
The editorialised title seems to be an extrapolation of one of the quotes from within the article, and that is if we’re being very generous. Would the mods be willing to clarify their position on this particular post?
They’re on standbi
Pilot on me!!
Nothing, he was gladiator.
