coleopterist

Anyhow. I'm off.

Erm. No.

The fact that my Mom asked me to explain it makes it notable :P

@Sklivvz Are expert opinions still considered speculation?

@Sklivvz Well, you deemed the non-trivial angle to this question to be anecdotal. And I tried to piggyback the colour change onto this question. Would reworking it further with this article change your mind?

@Sklivvz Refactored.

@Sklivvz I don't see why the question can't be opened to see if anyone can actually provide an answer. Why jump to conclusions? For example, the Wired article (cited in some of the links in the comments) features explanations by neuroscientists on why the differences in perception occur and could be a starting point for a good answer.

@ChrisW I confirmed that I experienced the colour change as well (as opposed to some people only seeing one set of colours and others another). The fact that you know that this is an optical illusion doesn't make this question incompatible with this site. If this exact optical illusion has been explained in some other question, then this should be marked a dupe of that. Else, it should be reopened and answered. I mentioned GIF vs. JPEG w.r.t the Internet-audience-at-large (who will hopefully benefit from a good answer to this question).

@ChrisW If there's a notable claim that can be answered using it, then I would vote to keep it in. The dress in this question has become something of a meme which makes it notable enough to warrant a proper answer. The scepticism here could be on any number of things: Does the dress change colour? Do some people actually see the dress as gold and white? Is it a hoax (i.e., are different images being displayed to different people?, is it a GIF?, etc.)?

As with @AndrewT., I can confirm that when I first saw this question, the dress was white and gold. It is now blue and black. Voting to reopen.

Ciao.

and to you and yours too.

I suppose that not much was accomplished here. But it is nevertheless nice to have had a conversation with the three of you in real time, so to speak.

You can surely try. Please stay away from my intriguing questions though.

Well, that's what it is.

And many of my questions see no answers/votes any way.

In any event, I will be exploiting this li'l loophole for all that it's worth as I will be including title tags in my questions. I want lots of badges.

We are having one now too ;)

@iandotkelly Yes, you seem to be fine with a system that is held together by worn out shoe strings. I am not. I like things to be organised and compartmentalised. You will also find that most people consider SE to actually be a library.

sigh and here we are again. If people find edits to be disagreeable, then they should go to meta. If they don't, then it's entirely their fault.

er

@ian

shrug then we come back to the point of what is "policy". If the policy is to not have tags in titles except in cases where the OP insists on it, then that is fine. (It is also silly.)

I disagree with any policy that it's fine to allow tags in titles based on the OP's whimsy. There are surely exceptions. But they have to be reasoned exceptions. Yes, this might be a minor issue in the grand scheme of things.

Yes, I did the right thing. He did the wrong thing. I might have done too much of the right thing. But it was nevertheless the right thing.

Furthermore, I would have also liked to have seen confirmation from the mods and other users that this whole tags in titles policy is not seemingly my policy as JSO has repeated claimed or that I am unilaterally enforcing it.

This is what I did here. The fact that JSO didn't bother to do it is entirely his issue. Quoting him "but I never saw this as needing to come to Meta in the first place, I thought it wasn't in any way a big deal," <--- even after I requested him to do so.

Personally, I prefer to avoid entering any comment below a question that is not about the content. When disputes arise, I always tell people to take things to meta where stuff can be reasoned out and the community can act on matters together.

@Tom Sure. But if a person is applying policy to a question and the OP disagrees with it, it should be up to the OP to go to meta and reason things out.

As you have noted in the past, I've even edited closed questions :S

@ChristianRau Sure. But as I said, IMO that having the tag in the title actually does improve your chances at better rep/badges. Most people might not care. But I've edited everybody's questions.

I am probably being pedantic here. But my edits were made in good faith. This is no longer the case.

It's irrelevant that nobody has complained. Perhaps they did not complain because they believed that it was site policy.

The reasons for the use of the title in JSO's case are laughable. You might not care about it. But I do.

Yes, and as in my meta post about the policy, if it is unavoidable for a valid reason, then it is fine.

To put it in another way, I will want to have film titles in all my question titles. I like shiny badges and want all the attention that I can get.

(Hence my rollbacks today*.)

No, this is about the policy of not having tags in titles. By allowing exceptions for JSO, this affects all others users whose questions have been edited (most often by yours truly) to remove tags.

In other words, all users would prefer to have tags in their titles. I would want my question title to read "What was the point of the wolf scene in Fantastic Mr. Fox?" rather than "What was the point of the wolf scene?"

Reason 2: Stackexchange functions based on the currency of reputation and badges. If I had a question about the Dark Knight and included the tag in my question's title, then it would a) be more visible to other users and b) be better ranked in search engines. More visits = more answers and more badges / rep. Whether this really matters is purely a matter of opinion.

When does a title turn from short to long? When does a title turn from bland to intriguing?

@iandotkelly based on what reasoning? That it was short?

@Tom Sure I could have. But there already is a meta post for that very reason. The one that I linked him to. He could simply have added an answer saying why he disagreed with the policy and why there ought to be exceptions.

If the reason of "adding intrigue" to the title is an acceptable one, then every user will want to add intrigue to theirs.

@iandotkelly Sure. But what was his reason for including the tag in the title?

The fact that JSO did not take matters to meta is what should be at question. The fact that he did so even after me explaining matters to him is what should be at question.

He did not take things to meta. Instead he simply rolled back again and I informed him that I would happily roll back all his changes as this was policy and that he should take it to meta.

He rolled back yet again (no comment) and I informed him that this was site policy (IIRC) and asked him to take matters to meta if he did not like it.

I rolled back his change. I left a comment stating why and pointed him to the meta post. Granted that that was my meta post.

This was without leaving a comment telling me why.