I made a change to this question's title today because it clearly asked a question that was different to the actual question the OP asked in the (more expansive and specific) body of their question.

My reasoning for doing this was as follows: —

  • The OP was clearly asking for a term to specifically apply to 'servers' that are functioning 24/7.
  • If the title was left as is, anyone that finds the question in future would be mislead to thinking that the majority of the answers (that answered the question asked by the OP in the body of their question) applied to the more general case, asked in the title of the question.
  • The intended meaning of the OP was overtly clear from the body of their question such that there could be no doubt that they had actually asked one question, but titled their question as if asking another far broader question.

Here are the specifics:

The original question title was:

what does it call in English?

The original body of the question was:

If we have some critical servers that have to be running 7 days a week, 24 hours a day and they can't be down even for one second. What does this particular of servers call in English?

Do 'productive' term suit?

This title was later improved, by JonMark Perry to:

what is another word for 24/7 in English?

and the body was further improved to:

If we have some critical servers that have to be running 7 days a week, 24 hours a day and they can't be down even for one second. What is this particular type of server called in English?

Does 'productive' term suit?

However the title is clearly asking a different question to the body of the question still, although it does at least now make some sense.

As such I changed the title further to:

What is another word for a server that is functioning 24/7?

The edit is an improvement to the title in my opinion because the question clearly asks for a word or phrase to describe "critical servers that have to be running 7 days a week, 24 hours a day and they can't be down even for one second. What is this particular type of server called in English?"

Now no doubt the question title can be further improved (I left 'word' in the revised title, which JonMark Perry added when he made the nonsense original title make sense). The OP didn't specify he was looking for a single word originally, so the title could be further improved to: 'what is the term' etc.

Is it correct to alter the title of a question when the question asked in the title is different to the question asked in the body of the question itself, in such examples as this, when the OP clearly meant to ask the question in the body and not the title?

I ask because Mari-Lou A answered the original title quite well and we got into a discussion about the correctness of fixing titles after the question has already received views. I would like the benefit of peer review here! As I see this as clear cut, but in case I am out on a limb, I'll avoid making such edits in future.

  • OK, the original title was ungrammatical. what does it call in English? It is practically nonsensical. An edit was therefore necessary, it saved the question from being closed IMO. But you corrected/fixed/improved/changed the edit which was what is another word for 24/7 in English? That as a title is understandable, grammatical, descriptive, and pertinent. The OP then received an answer, which I considered incorrect. I offered a better solution. Then suddenly the question hit the HNQ circuit because it's related to computer stuff.
    – Mari-Lou A
    May 15, 2017 at 7:05
  • 1
    Yes I agree the original title was nonsense; however, I didn't edit the second title for grammar, but semantics. The second title asks a far broader question than what the OP actually asked.
    – Gary
    May 15, 2017 at 7:09
  • Let the gods decide. Someone should probably explain to the OP how to accept an answer (it shouldn't be mine, and I don't want it to be). The OP may not want to accept any answer, but according to their history they have never accepted any answer it seems fair to surmise they are unfamiliar with the procedure. Good luck with your 100% uptime server answer!
    – Mari-Lou A
    May 15, 2017 at 7:22
  • Thanks, and you thoroughly deserved the up votes for your answer based on the title of the question when you answered it in my view. I'll be interested to hear what the gods decide as well.
    – Gary
    May 15, 2017 at 7:29
  • 1
    This is perhaps off-topic here, but IMHO none of the titles actually captured the spirit of OP's question, which I'm pretty sure was less focused on the 24/7 uptime, but the requirement for zero downtime. At least in the "computer stuff" world ( hi again @Mari-LouA ), simply leaving something turned on 24/7 is common and pretty trivial (and uses general terms such as "always-on"), but guaranteeing that it "can't be down even for one second" [OP] is a very specific (and more formal) case with its own technical & contractual requirements and slightly more specific vocabulary.
    – A C
    May 15, 2017 at 18:59
  • Ultimately you want a title that will help with searching in the future. The OP often doesn't know how to ask a question, and as things develop, it turns out the implications of the question may be more interesting than anyone initially thought (especially the OP), which is what happened here.
    – Xanne
    May 16, 2017 at 1:41
  • @Xanne In the interest of clarity and accuracy, may I suggest that someone, a user who has not posted an answer, specifically asks the OP if he is asking about one server, or several? If he is looking for a single-word that describes this type of server/s, or if the term or phrase must be related to "downtime"? If he's looking for a technical and precise expression, one that is familiar with IT engineers, or an easily understood, and self-explanatory, expression.
    – Mari-Lou A
    May 16, 2017 at 5:37

1 Answer 1


The original title by the OP was ungrammatical and pointless.

JonMarkPerry's edited title was grammatical but not as specific as it could be. No-one should have been answering based on the title alone, and the question body made it clear that the question was more specific than the title made it appear.

Your revised title was more specific, and in keeping with the body of the question. It was a wholly appropriate edit.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .