What do you think of posts that are only a link?
Should all posts include a thought, opinion, or summary from the OP? Is a post title usually enough?
If you appreciate posts that just a link to a video, news article, blog post, or website with no post text by the OP, why do you like them?
I find them very annoying, especially the ones that include "a discussion on hacker news", I'm here because I want to have a discussion here. Unless the link is a video, song, picture, etc. This is mainly regarding news stuff.
Oh yeah, I think I blocked the bot reposting from hacker news, and it's made Lemmy better.
I think a post body should usually be empty if it's a link, or at most should provide a summary or key points.
If you as the OP want to editorialise or provide your opinion on the article, do that in a top-level comment. And most of the time, you should do that. If you're posting it, you probably have an opinion, so get the conversation started by sharing it!
This probably the best approach, otherwise we end up with essays about their grandmother's love for certain recipes and the inspiration that their cooking was.
Plus, half the time people just want to share something cool they found.
I kind of prefer people provide context for a link before I jump into it, especially with spam converging on the fediverse and all
It depends on what it is. For things like headline news items, I'm fine with just a link and maybe the intro or summary paragraph in the body. But there are some things people post that make me think "Okay, so what," and it would be nice to get OP's thoughts on why it matters.
I am not clicking a random link without some explanation of what it is. I suspect most people are similar in that regard.
I usually block people who post like that since they post like bots usually. You can’t tell me someone is reading 30 articles in 10 minutes and comprehending them all.
Link, the reason it was posted and what is the outcome you're expecting by posting. That should start the conversation while avoiding that click-baitish feeling.
I like when the body has a summary of the contents behind the link, or even a personal opinion of OP on the topic or how they found the link etc.
It's still each users choice if they want to read it or go straight to the link.
IMO that's an advantage over the alien site.
Please add some description.
I like at least some topic discussion points for the community to interact with. Sometimes it seems like a post is just a cross reference to a Reddit post. The organic Lemmy content reminds me of the old Reddit days and brings me joy
It depends on the community.
I'd rather avoid editorialization. Would rather have opinions go in a top-level comment.
I think that it's useful from a context standpoint if the subtitle or first sentence or paragraph of an article provides a good summary of what the article is about.
I hadn’t considered that. I often do appreciate replies more than the OP’s take.
OPs always have the worst takes.
Except you, you seem alright, OP.
Everybody should make some real effort to write things that are worth writing.
Automated posts, low effort posts, and all such nonsense should never be written nor read.
Soon enough, it will become difficult to decide between human and bot. We want to stay human and be recognized as human.
I generally use the body text field for a snippet of the page I'm linking to, usually a paragraph or two that I felt were important takeaways from the article (so that people who generally only skim headlines may still see something useful from the article).
If I'm linking to an article, I personally don't like putting my own opinion in the OP, itself. I'd rather it be a top-level comment, instead, as it feels like grandstanding on somebody else's work when it's in the OP body.
Yeah, the way you described is what I'd also recommend, and I try to do the same.
For articles, try to stick to pulling out information from the article and adding little to it. I don't feel that good having "my comment" at the top of everyone else's, except when I add guiding direction for discussion (What are your thoughts?, Keep it civil, What would you do?, etc.)
Not even a single-sentence description? I'm against. No way I'm clicking a mystery link to see what's at the end of it. That's how you get on a list.
I don't think anyone gets to decide what a person "Should" be doing, who are these "should-ers" that get to make these decisions?
It's like putting a dead cow in a museum and calling it art. SHOULD it be art just because it's there? Or SHOULD there be some explanation or clue as to what the "artist" who put the cow there is trying to say? It's something I've thought about in relation to what constitutes art, and what doesn't.
My point here is just that in my view, it's helpful to have some more input rather than just a link when it's not apparent why the link matters or might be significant.
Only if it's self-explanatory, otherwise it could be anything. It could still be anything, but I'm usually less suspicious if there's some effort on the OP's part with the description and such.
An opinion from OP is the last thing I want to see in the post body. If you want use it as a summary for the post, but save your idiotic opinions for the comments.