Cant really tell u how to give titles, there’s no proper formula per se. All n all, it depends on a person riting the revu. All of us have some general characteristics, which forms our overall personality. Some ppl have a very decent look up, that decency is visible in most of things they do – the way they talk, way they r dressed, way they speak, they eat and so on… So if such a person rites a revu, his gentlemen ship will also visible in whatever he rites and the title he gives. Even if he’s not a regular or a gifted riter, still, one can feel the decency of language, irrespective of however ordinary the overall read of that article sums up.
Then there r others who are lil more casual in there approach , the cooler ones. They play more often with words and rite in the way that forms an informal way of talking. There title will be more casual and less professional.
There r however, certain popular forms of giving titles. They can be summed up as ::
Formal – Ex (Bike) Bullet Machismo – A review of Bullet Machismo.
Informal – Wow! Wat a Bike!!
Fundo – Dug Dug Dug Dug [ The authentic sound that it makes ]
Gimmicky – Sexy Erotica Story inside …..
The first one is a pro approach, just by reading the title, u expect the revu of bike, with essential features to be analyzed by the riter with Pros and Cons. The second title evokes a ‘Tadka’ of self experience, other than the technical aspect of the machine. Third one can be judged as a further casual approach, and expect more of ‘gup-shup’ than the actual analysis of bike. Fourth can be written off as a gimmick.
However this might not be the actual case. Often the 3rd and forth technique is used by the riters just to attract the attention of readers. Its may not be always successful, as the final faith of an article depends on information it contains inside. The rapper gives a nice look to the product but, if the product is not good, then as the saying goes, very hard to sell a bad product twice.
But titles are often helpful in short listing revus. If there are 10 revus on the same topic, then u select one which has an exciting title. However, the selection too, depends on your own personality, if u r easy going u select easy going types, n if u r pro type, then u select one with a formal title.
I generally give 3rd category title, as most of my revus too r not that pro, they r quite casually riten, and often are hardly useful as far as the proper product revu is considered.
Personally, I think, if r an ‘ok’ reader, the u can guess the quality of the revu by the title, or at least u get an idea of what to expect from that article. However, one can never be say things with complete accuracy unless one reads the article itself.
How to give titles – well, its more practical than theory, u start riting n then slowly u realize what kind of stuff u rite, the title thing too, comes naturally and instinctively. If u read all revus of a riter at a glance, u can get an idea about his style of riting. There will b certain trait and Trade mark kin of titles in most of his revu. It doesn’t follow any fix formula or mantra – but then as they say at the end of the day, a lion is a lion, n owl is n owl ….