I always look at the art first, then sometimes the title.

Of course! There can be a title of a piece of art that sets the theme for the whole damn thing.

I think the title or name of a piece, be it graphical or written is very important... it should focus on the work's main theme and give the visitor (in this case) a vague idea of what they're about to see/read. It's not the most important part in my opinion, but it IS part of the piece. So yeah we could say it affects my opinion, in a small range perhaps, but it does.

of course it does

you named the picture for a reason, its part of the piece

yes, because I feel like it's the part of the picture and if the pic is made with hard work, title must show that too.

Marketing and euphemisims. The difference between carbonated water and sparkling water... same shit; one just has a clever name.

The title gives me some insight as to what the artist meant when they made the art. Sometimes the title DEFINES the art. Imagine the diference between a picture of a kid and two possible titles.. "failed abortion" or "kid with lollypop"

I don't like to judge art by it's title.
but when i wasn't a subscriber i didn't get previews in my devwatch, so i would usually only click on the stuff by people i know are always good, or that had a good title.
but now i'm a subscriber i almost always see the picture before the title, so the title affects my oppinion less now.
although a good title is always nice.

Always. All the work (including the naming) that goes into a piece plays a part in the piece's significance. Even a lack of a title can have significance.

I hate when people leave pieces "untitled" it bugs me so much. To just not care about a piece enough to give it a name or identity..oh it irks me