Redundancy in titles in the review section

[ajinkya9]

Why does every title need to have "Review: " in there? :sun:

e.g.

Review: PasteBot.appspot.com

Wouldn't it be better if titles would convey more information ?
Like load time.
Or even better, Google Pagespeed score

https://developers.google.com/pagespeed/

e.g.

PasteBot.appspot.com , 96

We could also include more info, like site type(porn, ddl, filehost, warez, seo, tech-news) and Platform used(vbulletin, wordpress, ipb, xenforo, wcddl, custom).


People can then immediately deduce more information from the titles when they appear in the "Latest Posts" box.

So a better Title would look like

PasteBot.appspot.com, 96, pastebin, custom

 

[-Im.z2ight-]

I was thinking the same thing. Like its in the review section so we know we will be reviewing it. No need to put it in title.

 

[Rox]

titles were getting way too fancy, shitty, lengthy and what not!!! just imagine 1 day old site mentioning - XWarez - Best Warez Site with ShitSonic, ShitServe Download Links :facepalm:

that is the reason this rule was bought in...

 

[ajinkya9]

^^
I am not talking about that.

What I'm saying, is that it would be stupid to have the same strings in all the Thread titles.
Imagine if a rule in Hosting section was that it is compulsory to have the string "Official Hosting Thread: " prefix all the threads.

 

[soft2050]

Agreed! Review: could be removed from all the titles and i really like the idea of specifying Type & Script used in title. That would be a nice step

Siteurl.ext - Script, Type

Or wjunction could also add some prefix for script in that section

 

[Myth?]

Its the rules, now everybody go cry elsewhere.