I've seen several titles that are so vague that you only know what's being asked by reading the question body. Recent examples:
Should we be asking the authors to capture what specifically they're asking about in titles? I would consider that an obvious "yes" except that I never see anybody else doing it, so before I start leaving comments along that line I wanted to find out if I'm the only one who thinks it's a problem.
Yes, we should discourage vague titles. But sometimes it's hard to come up with a good title, so I'd recommend just editing it, or, downvote and comment, then remove your downvote after the edit.
Generally, it is preferable to use a title that makes clear what the question is; imagine what would happen if the question title would be "What is the correct word?" which would apply to all the cases the OP has a doubt about the word to use, or "I have a question," which would apply to all the questions.
Writing a clearer title is not always possible. What should be the question title when the OP cannot decide between two or more phrases to use, and those phrases are quite different?
If you are able to think of a better title, then you could rewrite the title yourself; if you are not able to think of a tittle that better suits the question, there are chances that even the question being asked is not clear, and the OP should be prompted to make clear what is being asked.
Just to add on:
Besides discouraging vague titles, we should encourage good titles. The FAQ should be modified (in its "How do I ask questions here?" section) to say "When you post a new question with a good title, other users will almost immediately see it". The FAQ should suggest how to write a good title; or possibly should link to a page about good titles, good questions, etc.
The FAQ should also say to include one's question in the question statement itself, instead of just in the title.
Perhaps title voting could be added. Setting aside the little questions of how much work it would take to add such a feature, and whether such voting is desirable in the first place, two important major issues arise: 1, Should title-vote points affect reputation, or merely be indicative, as for comments? 2, Should title-vote points be 1 point (up or down) per vote, or 2 points? Or, people could be allowed to title-vote a few times (2? 3?), each vote counting for a point, allowing finer gradations of approval or disapproval.
I would say beware, though. The title may be trying to convey the essence of the question, however vaguely. It is not always that we get the correct import of the OP -- there are instances where the title and/or body of a post have been edited under a misimpression/ misinterpretation by a well-meaning editor.
Furthermore, new members do not deserve to be discouraged even though their posts may be wanting in some respects.
That said, I agree with @Mitch: 'And edit, too, if the OP doesn't' (emphasis mine). We could always post a comment first (a small extra effort) and see what the OP would like to say.
I say that if a title is literate and witty, if perhaps a bit oblique to some, it should escape the wrath of the censorious and the humorless. Especially in Meta.
Yes, you're right. I asked something similar recently, and only now saw this question of yours.
Can we nudge the OP's to tighten up the question in the title?
