Urban rail trails are popular and beloved by cyclists for good reasons. They can be great routes that are built through urban areas in ways that keep cyclists away from automobiles. Plus, turning u...
It’s kind of hilarious to me that for all the words in your comment, you still didn’t mention what the actual topic of the video is.
Like, you meant “what the answer to the posed question is” - the topic is urban rail trails, and their (potential) use as cycling paths. The basic topic is brought up in the video description and title. The big issue they are teasing, which I can understand having a gripe with, is: In urban planning, by repurposing the rail trails for cycling, while an easy sell, it also removes infrastructure that may be better suited to restore as mass transit.
Unless this community has a rule about editorializing titles, you’re not required to use the video title as the post title and can enter your own. You should also be able to add your own body text to the post separate from the automatically pulled video description.
Alternatively, you can always make your own comment on this post that summarizes away the clickbait.
I mean, you are right, but I’ll be blunt: Why should I do the work for that video creator? Again, I am okay with downvotes and even removal of content. I am mostly focused on trying to interconnect content on the Fediverse, like PeerTube and Lemmy. In this case, highlighting that there is content on PeerTube by “professional” creators (urbanism and biking channels, especially Canadian ones for some reason, have some representation there, notably as official channels like here, not just people uploading their stuff). I do watch the videos, but usually while working on something else on my second screen - so that is another hurdle if I were to be expected to editorialise and summarise every video like this. Also, even without a rule, I try to keep editorialising to a minimum on principle.
Like - I understand finding it comical, but the word count is because of my brain being pulled into overcomplicating each sentence, both from being German and from neurodiversity. I could be equally antagonistic and say, “hey, why don’t you click the link, and check the easily and freely available transcript if you don’t want to watch a video.” That would be silly, and I understand that I, as the person sharing the content, have a bigger responsibility, but still - I don’t fully get why my behaviour is treated the way it is.
To be honest, I was immediately confused when you brought up this was “my content” and “an article”. Like, genuinely unsure if you meant that I literally created the content, and if you literally thought this is an article, and not a video. But I assume that was just to tease a proper reaction out of me? I am genuinely often not good at interpreting stuff like that from context clues.
So, to finish this up and to use the same language as you did: Unless this community has a rule about it, I don’t think I will want to go into the future doing the work of summarising every video I share on here and in other communities, just because the original creators used clickbait strategies. And if that - understandably - pisses people off, they are free to report and downvote, and maybe as a community draft a rule against it. (As I only post links to videos on here occasionally, I also don’t think I am going against the spam rule, but people may correct me there.)
Like, you meant “what the answer to the posed question is” - the topic is urban rail trails, and their (potential) use as cycling paths. The basic topic is brought up in the video description and title. The big issue they are teasing, which I can understand having a gripe with, is: In urban planning, by repurposing the rail trails for cycling, while an easy sell, it also removes infrastructure that may be better suited to restore as mass transit.
I mean, you are right, but I’ll be blunt: Why should I do the work for that video creator? Again, I am okay with downvotes and even removal of content. I am mostly focused on trying to interconnect content on the Fediverse, like PeerTube and Lemmy. In this case, highlighting that there is content on PeerTube by “professional” creators (urbanism and biking channels, especially Canadian ones for some reason, have some representation there, notably as official channels like here, not just people uploading their stuff). I do watch the videos, but usually while working on something else on my second screen - so that is another hurdle if I were to be expected to editorialise and summarise every video like this. Also, even without a rule, I try to keep editorialising to a minimum on principle.
Like - I understand finding it comical, but the word count is because of my brain being pulled into overcomplicating each sentence, both from being German and from neurodiversity. I could be equally antagonistic and say, “hey, why don’t you click the link, and check the easily and freely available transcript if you don’t want to watch a video.” That would be silly, and I understand that I, as the person sharing the content, have a bigger responsibility, but still - I don’t fully get why my behaviour is treated the way it is.
To be honest, I was immediately confused when you brought up this was “my content” and “an article”. Like, genuinely unsure if you meant that I literally created the content, and if you literally thought this is an article, and not a video. But I assume that was just to tease a proper reaction out of me? I am genuinely often not good at interpreting stuff like that from context clues.
So, to finish this up and to use the same language as you did: Unless this community has a rule about it, I don’t think I will want to go into the future doing the work of summarising every video I share on here and in other communities, just because the original creators used clickbait strategies. And if that - understandably - pisses people off, they are free to report and downvote, and maybe as a community draft a rule against it. (As I only post links to videos on here occasionally, I also don’t think I am going against the spam rule, but people may correct me there.)