JP did keep the ship of state afloat at SI. I am glad to see Perry back to regular posting but JP done good (as the sports commentator would say) when he was working almost single-handedly at times.

Of course he’s very good and of course his focus tends to be on financial issues. That’s the whole point of blogging. Blog about what you know. That is why we aren’t politicians who have an opinion on everything and knowledge of very little.

I really appreciate this following the last few months of chopping and changing staff at CCinZ.

I, for example, no longer do the science stuff on AGW at CCinZ because why have a Pa Annoyed and bark oneself?

<evil cackle>If only we can get Paul Marks and fuse his brain with Pa and we’d have something which could take-over the Universe.</evil cackle>

Know any good deals on extinct volcanoes, monorail systems, clipboards, Mao suits and Persian cats?

This is especially true in a world of Twitter and RSS readers.  I have so much stuff streaming at me that often the titles are important for (mental) filtering.  I don’t have time to open every article to see what it’s about.

(Of course, I read every word of my favourite blogs, sooner or later.)

Too true, about the clarity and informativeness of titles.

Afraid, I’m often guilty of going for “opaque and punning”. With unintended consequence that sometimes I’m the only one who gets the pun.

The rationale behind it is, approx., is to excite reader’s curiosity. Of course, instead it might get the “WTH is she talking about?!” reaction, dismissive headshake and - phew, we just lost a customer!

You are dead right about the informative LA titles, Brian. I’m far too inclined to opaque and punning blog post titles, and I’m going to see if changing this practice makes a difference.

Ken, good to hear from you again.

There is a posting at Samizdata up now, entitled “Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.” Very poetic, and since it’s Guy Herbert it is well worth reading.  But what the hell, even approximately, is it about?  Who do the gods have it in mind to destroy?  How are they going mad?

I know, what it is about is right underneath, but not at all the other places where this title will appear.

Not that informative titles will save this blog from Z-ness.  My problem is the randomness of the content.

I often choose cute, punning titles for blog posts and then end up replacing them with something more simple and descriptive before I actually post them. (I did this for the Chernobyl post. And the Korea post. And quite a few others). In particular if the post is long, or the post is a little discursive and I do not make it exactly clear in the first paragraph what it is ultimately going to be about about, it is very important to give readers a hint about what they will find at the end somehow, and saying it simply in the title is usually the best way. There is a place for puns and obscure allusions, but the title is now always it.

Ken, you seem to love punning and opaque chapter titles. I guess one difference between this and blog post titles is that chapter titles are seldom used for indexing.

Michael - another difference between chapter titles and blog post (and political pamphlet) titles has to do with search costs in a context of time constraints and competing claims for attention. I’m sure our host could explain this much more elegantly than I.

Ken - I very much doubt that!

But I agree about chapter headings in fictional books.  Once you start reading a book, (a) you want to finish it, whether the chapter headings make much sense or not, (b) you expect a bit of mystery.