Return to Answer

to enable future users to find the question when writing similar code

In an ideal world, people would come here to get their code reviewed after being certain that this is the best code they can write. Reading through other code reviews on similar scenarios would help here, and a good title would help them decide whether that question is sufficiently similar to the code they are writing.

Unfortunately, a code review is highly localized to the asker's code, and not a general repository of knowledge with lasting value (this is where CR is radically different from other SE sites). So this audience is probably irrelevant.

to serve as a mnemonic identifier for the question

When talking about similar questions, we might refer to them by title. There are also many cases where the title is the only available identification, for example:

• In the “hot network questions” list
• In various lists on our user pages, e.g. reputation or activity.

The title should therefore be sufficiently informative on its own.

to make a potential reviewer curious about the code

I believe this is their most important job.

The tags play an important role here, as I am not interested in some technologies (cobol), whereas I positively must review all questions about another one (perl).

The title should not be “How can I improve my code” or “Please review this”, as that is fairly obvious given that this site is about code reviews. It should instead contain information on what that code is doing, and how that code is doing it:

• Please review my Fizz Buzz implementation – asking for review is implicit.
• Fizz Buzz implementation – ok, this is telling me what the code is doing, but I have no interest in reviewing yet another Fizz-Buzz solution. All that can be said has already been said for other questions. See my above point about reading similar questions.
• Fizz Buzz without hardcoded rules – oh, something new. This is a good title.

I find it absolutely acceptable for a title to only address the what, but a good title will offer additional information to make it more interesting. Note that language or library choices do not generally make a question more interesting – that info belongs into the tags.  

to enable future users to find the question when writing similar code

In an ideal world, people would come here to get their code reviewed after being certain that this is the best code they can write. Reading through other code reviews on similar scenarios would help here, and a good title would help them decide whether that question is sufficiently similar to the code they are writing.

Unfortunately, a code review is highly localized to the asker's code, and not a general repository of knowledge with lasting value (this is where CR is radically different from other SE sites). So this audience is probably irrelevant.

to serve as a mnemonic identifier for the question

When talking about similar questions, we might refer to them by title. There are also many cases where the title is the only available identification, for example:

• In the “hot network questions” list
• In various lists on our user pages, e.g. reputation or activity.

The title should therefore be sufficiently informative on its own.

to make a potential reviewer curious about the code

I believe this is their most important job.

The tags play an important role here, as I am not interested in some technologies (cobol), whereas I positively must review all questions about another one (perl).

The title should not be “How can I improve my code” or “Please review this”, as that is fairly obvious given that this site is about code reviews. It should instead contain information on what that code is doing, and how that code is doing it:

• Please review my Fizz Buzz implementation – asking for review is implicit.
• Fizz Buzz implementation – ok, this is telling me what the code is doing, but I have no interest in reviewing yet another Fizz-Buzz solution. All that can be said has already been said for other questions. See my above point about reading similar questions.
• Fizz Buzz without hardcoded rules – oh, something new. This is a good title.

I find it absolutely acceptable for a title to only address the what, but a good title will offer additional information to make it more interesting. Note that language or library choices do not generally make a question more interesting – that info belongs into the tags.

to enable future users to find the question when writing similar code

In an ideal world, people would come here to get their code reviewed after being certain that this is the best code they can write. Reading through other code reviews on similar scenarios would help here, and a good title would help them decide whether that question is sufficiently similar to the code they are writing.

Unfortunately, a code review is highly localized to the asker's code, and not a general repository of knowledge with lasting value (this is where CR is radically different from other SE sites). So this audience is probably irrelevant.

to serve as a mnemonic identifier for the question

When talking about similar questions, we might refer to them by title. There are also many cases where the title is the only available identification, for example:

• In the “hot network questions” list
• In various lists on our user pages, e.g. reputation or activity.

The title should therefore be sufficiently informative on its own.

to make a potential reviewer curious about the code

I believe this is their most important job.

The tags play an important role here, as I am not interested in some technologies (cobol), whereas I positively must review all questions about another one (perl).

The title should not be “How can I improve my code” or “Please review this”, as that is fairly obvious given that this site is about code reviews. It should instead contain information on what that code is doing, and how that code is doing it:

• Please review my Fizz Buzz implementation – asking for review is implicit.
• Fizz Buzz implementation – ok, this is telling me what the code is doing, but I have no interest in reviewing yet another Fizz-Buzz solution. All that can be said has already been said for other questions. See my above point about reading similar questions.
• Fizz Buzz without hardcoded rules – oh, something new. This is a good title.

I find it absolutely acceptable for a title to only address the what, but a good title will offer additional information to make it more interesting. Note that language or library choices do not generally make a question more interesting – that info belongs into the tags.

to enable future users to find the question when writing similar code

In an ideal world, people would come here to get their code reviewed after being certain that this is the best code they can write. Reading through other code reviews on similar scenarios would help here, and a good title would help them decide whether that question is sufficiently similar to the code they are writing.

Unfortunately, a code review is highly localized to the asker's code, and not a general repository of knowledge with lasting value (this is where CR is radically different from other SE sites). So this audience is probably irrelevant.

to serve as a mnemonic identifier for the question

When talking about similar questions, we might refer to them by title. There are also many cases where the title is the only available identification, for example:

• In the “hot network questions” list
• In various lists on our user pages, e.g. reputation or activity.

The title should therefore be sufficiently informative on its own.

to make a potential reviewer curious about the code

I believe this is their most important job.

The tags play an important role here, as I am not interested in some technologies (cobol), whereas I positively must review all questions about another one (perl).

The title should not be “How can I improve my code” or “Please review this”, as that is fairly obvious given that this site is about code reviews. It should instead contain information on what that code is doing, and how that code is doing it:

• Please review my Fizz Buzz implementation – asking for review is implicit.
• Fizz Buzz implementation – ok, this is telling me what the code is doing, but I have no interest in reviewing yet another Fizz-Buzz solution. All that can be said has already been said for other questions. See my above point about reading similar questions.
• Fizz Buzz without hardcoded rules – oh, something new. This is a good title.

I find it absolutely acceptable for a title to only address the what, but a good title will offer additional information to make it more interesting. Note that language or library choices do not generally make a question more interesting – that info belongs into the tags.