User:Andrewa/my first epiphany

Background
I have been working on what I see as a problem with Primary Topic for some time. It seemed so much trouble, for so little benefit, that at one stage I did a great deal of work on proposal to abandon the concept entirely.

The basic motivation for that (now obsolete) essay was the conclusion that, against all my instincts and assumptions, Primary Topic actually made finding articles harder not easier. This is what I call my first epiphany in this context. (And the second epiphany was the realisation that there was a far simpler solution than getting rid of Primary Topic altogether, which is when that earlier essay became obsolete.)

But these two epiphanies don't achieve anything unless I can communicate them, and bring others to the same way of thinking.

The problem
please explain why you think having an article at the term most likely to be used in searching for it (or a redirect to the article at that term) does not make the article easier (fewer clicks) to find... 

That (in bold in the original you'll note) after much discussion.

It not only doesn't make it easier to find, unless the redirect from an unambiguous name exists too (as it may or may not under our current policy) it actually makes it harder to find.

The idea of PT is that overall'' (not for all, but for more than less), recognizing PTs makes sought articles easier to find (fewer clicks; fewer DAB landings). More importantly to me, it's a reasonable basis for deciding relatively objectively how to arrange the articles and titles. If we weaken (deprecate) PT, but don't eliminate it all together, that just makes the guidelines even more vague, making conflict about titles even more likely.''

Lots there. Again, the claim that recognizing PTs makes sought articles easier to find is exactly the topic here.

And there's a key phrase above...overall (not for all, but for more than less). This again is exactly the question.