Redundancy in titles in the review section

[ajinkya9]

Why does every title need to have "Review: " in there?

e.g.

Review: PasteBot.appspot.com

Wouldn't it be better if titles would convey more information ?
Like load time.
Or even better, Google Pagespeed score

https://developers.google.com/pagespeed/

e.g.

PasteBot.appspot.com , 96

We could also include more info, like site type(porn, ddl, filehost, warez, seo, tech-news) and Platform used(vbulletin, wordpress, ipb, xenforo, wcddl, custom).


People can then immediately deduce more information from the titles when they appear in the "Latest Posts" box.

So a better Title would look like

PasteBot.appspot.com, 96, pastebin, custom

ajinkya9 Reviewed by ajinkya9 on 2nd Jan 2012. Redundancy in titles in the review section Why does every title need to have "Review: " in there? :sun: e.g. Review: PasteBot.appspot.com Wouldn't it be better if titles would convey more information ? Like load time. Or even better, Google Pagespeed score https://developers.google.com/pagespeed/ Rating: 5

[-Im.z2ight-]

I was thinking the same thing. Like its in the review section so we know we will be reviewing it. No need to put it in title.

[Rox]

titles were getting way too fancy, shitty, lengthy and what not!!! just imagine 1 day old site mentioning - XWarez - Best Warez Site with ShitSonic, ShitServe Download Links

that is the reason this rule was bought in...

[ajinkya9]

^^
I am not talking about that.

What I'm saying, is that it would be stupid to have the same strings in all the Thread titles.
Imagine if a rule in Hosting section was that it is compulsory to have the string "Official Hosting Thread: " prefix all the threads.

[soft2050]

Agreed! Review: could be removed from all the titles and i really like the idea of specifying Type & Script used in title. That would be a nice step

Siteurl.ext - Script, Type

Or KWWHunction could also add some prefix for script in that section

[Myth?]

Its the rules, now everybody go cry elsewhere.