More clearly: I would never ever even think of creating a new discussion ... with a node called 'details'. But ... it's obvious that I'm talking about details regarding 'Interesting technique to do xyz'!

With all due respect, your premise is faulty because it presumes that the reader is always going to view a node in the exact same context that you expect them to. This is just plain wrong, and it's a pervasive misconception that is all the more *annoying*, when it comes from experienced and intelligent people who should know better.

For example, suppose your details are so insightful and noteworthy that I decide to save or print your node separately on my own computer? Sure it's easy enough for me to save the entire thread so I don't lose the context, but why should I have to?

Saving the entire thread is not always a good option anyway, since "readmore" tags may obscure the content that I specifically found useful in your node. The result is I have to save both the inidvidual page of your content, along with enough of the thread so I have a complete picture, when it would have been simpler for you to just leave the subject line intact with the word "details" added on.

It's bad enough when people *intentionally* add barriers to information to make it harder to repurpose (e.g., copy protection, byzantine file formats, spurious and trifling intellectual property claims, exhorbitant access fees, etc etc etc ... ) ... why *add* to the complexity and burden for others just because of what you or I may think should be *obvious*?

If you're speaking to a global audience that ranges the complete spectrum of experience, education, culture, and technical proficiency; with devices and platforms that some of us do not even realize exist, then *nothing* should be assumed as "obvious".

No, it's not the most urgent issue in the world, but this kind of tunnel-vision-thinking adds up to make *so many* things a lot harder then they have to be.