If you want to provide a title of your own, be my guest. I prefer when Lemmy users keep their editorialising to a minimum when sharing content from elsewhere in the web, so I stick to OG titles or visible headlines, adding necessary context in square brackets when I feel it’s necessary.
Yeah that’s fair. I’m not the creator of this video, but I think this is an interesting case. Because I too hate clickbaity titles. But I actually think that the combination of the thumbnail (“I was there”) with the title made it clear enough what the video would be about. Sure, rephrasing the title as “the true story of how Raygun represented Australia in the Olympics” or something like that would have been better, but that probably still would attracted criticism for clickbaitiness, despite being about as accurate and straightforward as you can get in the short space of a title.
If you want to provide a title of your own, be my guest. I prefer when Lemmy users keep their editorialising to a minimum when sharing content from elsewhere in the web, so I stick to OG titles or visible headlines, adding necessary context in square brackets when I feel it’s necessary.
Sorry, didn’t mean this to be a critique of the post. You should totally just use the video title as you did and keep editorializing minimal.
I just dislike the trend of naming videos like this in general. Again, not your fault unless you are the video creator.
Yeah that’s fair. I’m not the creator of this video, but I think this is an interesting case. Because I too hate clickbaity titles. But I actually think that the combination of the thumbnail (“I was there”) with the title made it clear enough what the video would be about. Sure, rephrasing the title as “the true story of how Raygun represented Australia in the Olympics” or something like that would have been better, but that probably still would attracted criticism for clickbaitiness, despite being about as accurate and straightforward as you can get in the short space of a title.