ive actually had a few unsecure connections come up on the titles ive clicked on recently so i dont know what thats about i like to click on the comments to take me to the post that way i dont get directly linked to youtube or where ever its going to

Concerned about 35 post for "censorship". A person can have discernment if the information is subjective or objective. My discernment has rationalized that voat is a hud for deep state. And people are lazy to make this decision because they want the "Truth" feed to them.

I avoid linked title posts at all costs. I've tried to train myself to hover first and then click on 'comments' instead of the title so I can see what's going on with the topic before I waste my time on a links that #1) I may have already seen before, #2) Will take too much of my time to watch or read, #3) Are just plain silly or spam.

4 for me. You can ask the OP to put a subtitle in bold at the start of their discussion if the actual title can't be edited to suit (poss with a "Title problem" flair). If the subtitle (bold 1st para of the actual article) isn't up to scratch then give a 24hr flair.

On a more general note, I don't think we should be linking to external sites directly from the title - the link should be in the article following an intro. This is particularly the case for Youtube links which sometimes I think are just a way to get traffic to users' Youtube subs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faEc1-K6JL4

Flip the d in John Podesta's name.

John Pobesta.

Enforcing a rule that headlines in and of themselves**** comply with all of the rules of submission is circularly illogical. If such a requirement was uniformly enforced (which it is not) then there would be no reason to continue the body of a submission because everything would have already been stated and substantiated in the headline! Might make for some VERY long headlines, as well. But (as many of us have been made humiliatingly aware) such enforcement has been spotty, arbitrary, and rare. Most headlines don't even approach such compliance (thankfully) and for that we should, I suppose, be thankful in a rueful sort of way. There is simply no need to do it. So don't. I vote for choice #4 : we would be better off without it. Solid, relevant, empirically substantiated and sensible submissions should stand or fall on their merits. Stupid, evil and/or irrelevant submissions ... evaluated on the entirety of their content ... will usually fail from either from being ignored out of existence or voated into oblivion. Only rarely should a Mod have to invest their valuable and limited time to tip bad submissions into the shithole.

I'm going to go against the consensus here and say that I don't have a problem with hyperlinks in the title as along as the title is descriptive and relevant for this forum. I make all types of posts: short ones, long ones and hyperlinks. And sometimes a hyperlink is useful to draw attention to something specific. The thumbnail feature tends to attract a higher rate of viewers just because of the visuals. I personally think it's a mistake to get rid of the hyperlinks. And to the people who don't like them, there is the option not to click on them. Just sayin..

I don't click on everything..we all make personal choices on what we are interested in. As long as people are conforming to the rules don't decrease the variety of threads on here just because people find hyperlinks inconvenient in getting to the comments section. It has to do with one's attitude to 'habits'.

All I want to say is that I hate those fucking "link posts" that take you to some outside site.

It's way too easy for lazy morons to post these link posts that:

1) have no text explaining them or providing context,

2)that waste your time going to outside sites

3) that sometimes 404,

4) then you have to click the back button to go back to voat,

5) then you have to click on the discussion link to see discussion comments

WTF you lazy slobs! Get off your butts, do some real research, and stop wasting people's time.

4 - relevance to pizzagate is usually obvious or it can be explained in the text.

and no "share a link" posts. I thought this option had been disabled at one point. it would be ideal if posters included a brief description of video links but that might be asking too much.

I am also a #4 because only the people that watch the action around constantly really understand the rules well enough to comply regularly. Posting can be a tedious gauntlet for people who don't keep a steady eye on the rules although it seems relatively easy to those who understand it. If its a shit post the content of the post will quickly reveal it to be a shit post.

Maybe the rule could be reworded such as "please try to make title as relevant as possible and reflect the content of the post as closely as possible." At least the instruction and request are still there.

Other wise I think the flair experiment has been a real success. There is now a level of respect displayed for the time and effort of the posters here that this sub has never had in the past. Sincere efforts are being made and I see progress from the efforts. Great work guys :)

i'm enjoying the new meatier choice of delicacies on the pizzagate menu since the changes were implemented .... it was getting a bit dry before .... i'm terrible all i care about is the subject matter i dont really care about the source .... it could be a homeless dude who looks like gargamel or it could be a senator .......i tend to look everywhere for info but you mods rock you are the schoolteacher marking a stack of exam papers and i love yas for doing it ...... it keeps voat classy :) i probably wont start posting because there are enough enthusiastic people already doing it and even though i have a university degree i hate formatting assignments .... always did and always will

Long time reader of this sub and just want to say I like how you're asking users up front now instead of backroom rules with the owners who don't really care about pizzagate. Keep up the good work pizzagaters.

I vote #4, getting rid of headline requirements. Let the free market do its work. If the title isn't enticing or relevant, readers are less likely to click on it. Let the Voat system do the job. If someone likes the post but not the title, they can give a suggested title. It would be up to the author whether to change it or not.

I agree with Blacksmith21: 5 - NO HYPERLINKS IN TITLE

5 - NO HYPERLINKS IN TITLE.

Maybe it's me, I don't click on title links not knowing what they are.

Initial thoughts: It's a shame to lose good posts due to rule 3.

I like #2: the 24 hour 'edited title' flair idea for posts that otherwise meet the other rules.

I just helped out on Darkknight111 post (filling in titles on a list of PG links). His is part 3 of a series already accepted, so his title could be grandfathered in, as long as the content meets the other rules imo (which I believe it does).

Had the 24 hour period passed without him addressing the flair, I doubt he would have reposted all the very lengthy post, so in his case rule 3 really doesn't work.