Improper question titles/questions

Question

It might be nitpicking but there are question titles that are imo wrongly asked. The question itself might be better, but those titles are simply wrong.

Here are some examples ...

1. "Theoretically"-questions:

   • Theoretically, could we spend trillions and remove significant CO2 from atmosphere?
     Theoretically nearly everything is possible and yes we could because money is something that has a given and no absolutely fixed value. If we were intelligent and social creatures, we would save our earth no matter how much it costs.
   • Is OClF5 theoretically possible?
     Theoretically it is possible, it simply depends on the conditions. In the moment that I draw a molecule on paper, it was created theoretically. But is it possible to synthesize it on earth under conditions that we can control? I have no idea.

   Those questions can mostly be answered by yes or no, while I tend to always say yes. Look at molecules ... if you draw them on a paper, they are made theoretically. But can they be synthesized? Maybe not to our current knowledge but that does not mean that is impossible. So "theoretically" isn't a good question-scheme.

2. "Can"-questions
   I'm not sure if this fits for every "can"-question but for many of them ... Nearly everything can happen but not everything is going to happen because it's probability is nearly zero.

3. "Is there a way for something ... ?"-questions

   • Is there a way to find the kinetics data for the strong acid weak base reaction?

   There is a way for everything and if there is no known way today, there might be a known way or anytime in the future. If the "real" question would be the same as the titled question there wouldn't be an answer except the simple yes.

Two last examples:

1. What Methods Would I Use To Powder Cotton?
   There is absolutely no way, except mind reading, that anyone else than the OP himself knows which method he would use ...

2. Why $\ce{[Cu(NH3)4]^2+}$ is a square planar species and not a tetrahedral species?
   $\ce{[Cu(NH3)4]^2+}$ is absolutely not a square planar species. The copper is coordinated in a square planar way but that doesn't make the whole ion a square planar species ...

Now theoretically, is there a way to change those questions? Can they be changed to better question titles that are not "wrong"? What method would I use to convince you to support me?

Answer 1

Bad titles are a sickness. If you don't treat 'em ASAP, they'll take over your body, even if you consider them a single cold.

Now don't tell me I'm over-dramatic. (I am but that isn't relevant.) The other site I'm active on, ELL, realized the problem when it was too late. Thus, the editors don't even bother to edit question titles anymore. It's kinda depressing when you look at it from that aspect.

---

That said, we're not the untidy chemists who usually blow up stuff in cartoons;

we are tidy chemists that still blow up stuff like in cartoons. As this tidy chemist and company love clear titles, we tend to fight this sickness in our own way (I prefer antibiotics though).

As you can see in this deadly serious answer, we're actually very sensitive about it.

---

So, what can you, as a community member, do? Suggest edits!¹

Just make sure your edit reason is clearer than "I edited cuz balloons" and your intention is good, and you'll get 'em approved anyway. And as you know, as soon as you get to 2k, you'll have full post editing rights and don't need two (maybe grumpy) reviewers to accept your edit. Anyways, thanks for reading.

---

_{1: What is a meta answer without bold stuff anyway?}

Answer 2

Welcome to the Don Quijote club of editors.

It is indeed an everlasting fight and M.A. already covered most of the history of it. Keeping an eye out on question titles is one of the most important things on the site, since they show up in all search engines first. One reason why we discourage the use of MathJax^‡ in question titles (for reasons {you know}). So to keep it plain and simple:
Death to the buzzwords!
To all of them.

And now for the original purpose of this addendum:
Make the edits substantial and please fill out the edit summary even when you obtained the editing privilege.^♥ You might wonder why... well, even if you did not ask, here it comes any way:

1. I/ We/ They really do not need to know if you

   • edited the title
   • edited the tags
   • removed/ added 23.5 characters in body

   I/ We/ They can see that - it is fairly obvious. What I/ we/ they cannot see is the reason why you did that.

2. With the summary you give feedback to the OP. This is especially important if you are editing a post of a new user. Make them understand what you are doing and how they can improve their posts.
3. Some posts become real edit messes over time and it is hard to follow, why what was done when. One on the most recent examples, can be found here. If it's really necessary to follow through the edit history, these summaries can safe a lot of time.
4. It makes you check again, what you have done and if there could be anything more to clean up. This is just a nice side effect though.

Thank you for your kind consideration.
Now editing should not be a chore, it still should be fun and every little thing helps grow the site into a nice place. So on behalf of everyone, thank you very much.

---

Footnotes:
^‡ It's not $\LaTeX$ you know.
^♥ I often do not confer to my own standards and you might find a lot of my edits have the standard summary - I understand when you just don't have the time any more and sometimes the edit is just self explanatory. When you reached 10 k you can edit tags inline, hence the standard "edited tags" will be given then. This is of course very helpful for quick retags.