What are the rules for big edits of titles?

Question

When someone posts a question with a really generic title like "Help with algebra problem" I usually check the post to find a better, much more specific title (something like "Property of Jacobson radicals") and edit right away. This is almost always the first thing I do when I revise a post.

But what differentiates edits of titles from edits of the body is that the titles are what enables the OP (and others) to find their question again. I always think that they might find it offensive when their whole title has changed a lot, but I never asked and I am not sure if any general rules apply here.

The help center on the edit privilege is not specific about titles. Specifically, I wonder:

1. Shall I always ask the OP to edit the title themselves, and give them already a suggestion?
2. If not: shall I always leave a comment that I edited the title (and why)?
3. What about other edits in the title which do not completely replace it, but make it more specific? What rules or recommendations apply here?

For example, here I added the formula to the title because otherwise the title was pretty much meaningless. An example with a complete replacement was here.

Edit: this has been suggested as a duplicate, but this only asks for a specific situation (namely when the OP doesn't want the edit), no answer has been posted (it was also falsely marked as a duplicate by the way), and in any case I am asking for a complete set of guidelines here. Also, our guidelines for a good title don't answer my question. I know what a good title is, my question is how to coordinate the edit process with the OP.

Answer 1

I don't think there is unanimous agreement about how these situations should be handled. My preference: If the title can be significantly improved, and you are confident in your edit, I encourage you to edit the title. In my view, this strictly improves things for both the original poster and for future readers. But... be prepared that some people may give you a hard time. Many people on this site feel differently than I do.

As I see it, our mission is both to help the original poster, and also to build an archive of knowledge that will be useful to others in the future. If you can improve the title, editing it certainly benefits the "archive" mission. Moreover, I suspect it's likely to benefit the original poster as well, because I suspect it makes it more likely that others who can answer will find the question, and thereby makes it more likely they will get a good answer. Still, I recognize that there are many users on this site who are quite skeptical about anyone other than the original poster editing the post.

To answer your specific questions: as I see it, no need to ask the poster to make the change, no need to leave a comment, and make a change if it improves the question.

As always, I remind people of the help center article (https://math.stackexchange.com/help/editing):

this site is collaboratively edited, like Wikipedia. If you see something that needs improvement, edit it!

Editing is important for keeping posts clear, relevant, and up-to-date. If you are not comfortable with the idea of your contributions being collaboratively edited by other trusted users, this may not be the site for you.

That said, it's also worth being aware that this site uniquely has a culture that is ambivalent, or even hostile, about edits (by anyone other than the original poster). Some support it, but others are strongly opposed. I believe, if you can edit the title in a way that makes a significant improvement, doing so leaves the place better off than you found it -- but I also recognize that, in doing so, you might face criticism, opposition, rollbacks, accusations, etc. If you would prefer not to enter into that situation, that is perfectly understandable, and it is also perfectly reasonable to skip editing the title and move on with your day towards some contribution that will be more unambiguously appreciated.

Answer 2

Just to describe what I do (or try to do) personally:

I wouldn't introduce new content or make major changes without at least prompting the OP to approve/implement them. That would include rewriting the title, in my view.

In a similar vein, it sometimes happens that the OP uses a term or makes a reference that I happen to recognize but which I don't think is terribly well known. In such a case, I may add a link in the comments and suggest that the OP include it in their post or otherwise clarify the terms involved. I wouldn't add it to the post directly. That would apply here as well. I would add a comment suggesting that "I need help!" isn't terribly illuminating and that something that gave a notion of the matter underlying the question would be a better idea.

In cases, common enough, where the OP has left the question entirely in the header, I will copy and paste it into the body as well. Generally this will involve re-formatting, but I don't see it as adding content. And I'll "clean up" grammar and spelling but I try to stick to fairly non-controversial standards...no texting shorthand, for instance.

Answer 3

For what it's worth, I take a position opposite of that taken by lulu. Composing a descriptive title is part of what makes a good MathSE question.

When I encounter an (overall) low quality question, and no other MathSE reviewer has left a pertinent comment, I will leave a comment like:

For what it's worth, virtually every MathSE posted question that I have seen, that followed this article on MathSE protocol has been upvoted rather than downvoted. I am not necessarily advocating this protocol. Instead, I am merely stating a fact: if you scrupulously follow the linked article, skipping/omitting nothing, you virtually guarantee a positive response.

The linked article contains:

Have your query title include at least one word in English, so that reviewers can mouse-right-click to bring up the query. At the same time, use MathJax in your query title so that the title indicates in as much detail as is reasonably possible, what you are going to ask about.

Alternatively, if the posted question is otherwise of reasonably high quality, but contains a title such as "Please Help", then I will leave a comment asking the original poster to edit their title.

So, if the title is low quality, then (one way or another) I explain this to the original poster and ask them to (in effect) improve the quality of their title.

I don't see this approach as problematic. That is, I see no reason not to require that the original poster improve the quality of their title, in the same way that the original poster is required (when necessary) to improve the quality of other aspects of their posted question.