Clickbait:
I understand not wanting to “editorialize” the author’s title, and it’s even forbidden in some communities. That’s fine, just include something in the text, or possibly append it to the end of the title in brackets. ie:
Scientists have unveiled the secret to long life using this one weird trick! [diet and exercise]
Probably 90% of articles I come across can be summarized in 1-2 sentences. I often find myself doing just that, in other people’s posts, but putting it in the comments makes it far less visible.
Sources:
Please do not link your post to a source of a source. Sometimes I have to click 3 and 4 articles deep to find the original source. Many times they don’t include the original source, or any other source to speak of, they just link back to their own publication a dozen fucking times. If you come across an article that links to another source, which also isn’t the original source, and without adding meaningful context, just link to the original source, please.
Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.
Hard agree. I tend to ignore posts that only provide a link and nothing else.
At the very least highlight something of the text in the post description that is worth reading to create a discussion, and then give us your two cents in the comments.
Oh yeah, and the posts with just a youtube link and a title that doesn’t adequately describe it drive me nuts.
ETA 1min later I see the perfect example https://lemmy.zip/post/58083735
On the other end of the spectrum are post descriptions that copy the entire article and you’re met with a giant wall of text. It’s about curation, folks!
I’ve noticed that trend, especially with high-volume posters
Some things are posted with substance and other times it’s just a link to a pic of a random artefact in a museum. Ok, it’s cool looking but is it significant? Not that that matters but if you’re going to post something at least include why. Other than “I hit random”