Let us say I want to ask a question on probability. Take a look at the following image:

There are dozens and dozens of such posts with almost same titles. I have seen this post. In fact, one of the comments do talk about this exact situation. However I don't see how I can include more info on the title without just posting the entire question(say for the probability case above).

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Titles can be quite long. Try summarizing the question in the title; you may even be able to fit the entire gist of it in there. $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey May 1 at 14:47

Let us turn it around, what does "Question on probability" convey?

The "Question on" is redundant. Everything here ought to be a question. It is not as if we had different types of threads and you had to signal this one is about a question, as opposed to being a review of a book, or announcing a seminar, etc.

Further, the "probability" is redundant with the tag .

Thus, no additional information is conveyed by this title, put bluntly, the title is useless.

You say that you do not see how you can include more information in the title without just posting the entire question. But there is no problem with posting the entire question in the title. Just do that.

Then make sure to repeat the question in the body and do not forget to add some more context.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I understand. Thanks for the clarification! $\endgroup$ – DatBoi May 1 at 14:52
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Tag & title serve different purposes. If one is "redundant" in view of the other, that doesn't necessarily mean either one is useless. There is such a thing as useful redundancy, indeed, the entire mathematical field of error-correcting codes is based on useful redundancy. I agree that "probability" all by itself is an awful title, but I see nothing wrong with including that word in such a title as "probability of a straight flush". $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson May 1 at 23:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson I disagree with your example, since it is not an example of a mathematical redundancy, but rather a linguistic one. I do agree with your general point, though. $\endgroup$ – Don Thousand May 2 at 17:46

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .