3 ms·

Does folksonomy qualify as a good name? I registered a name that violates almost every point in every guideline list I have read to date. To oops or not to oops

Does folksonomy qualify as a good name? I registered a name that violates almost every point in every guideline list I have read to date. To oops or not to oops.

bootload 20y ago
'... folksonomy qualify as a good name ...' The irony of a site not following it's own suggestions. Maybe the suggestions are skewed to theoretical commercial sites. Anyway they are only suggestions. For every case you could find a valid corollary. Delicious is a great one. Just how did it get so popular with that name?
- whacked_new 20y ago
  del.icio.us is hard as hell to type. Here is my speculation. First, "del" and "us" are easy to remember. Now you just place in the dots. So in terms of your memory, the difficult part is in the production phase (typing), not the storage and retrieval. Second, I imagine most of its initial users were relatively well educated and web-wise. Third, the lack of .com makes it unique, and at its time, a pioneer. The pioneer always has imitators, and we have seen plenty. Flickr is another one of those "pioneers." And pioneers don't follow guidelines, because guidelines were based on the pioneers. So much for these tips; they should make a portfolio demonstrating how creative they are, like logo firms do. "Here are some example names we've come up with: 1. Folksonomy..." 4 syllables, 10 characters, and if you type properly, the second half of the word uses way too much index-finger.
  - bootload 20y ago
    '... First, "del" and "us" are easy to remember. Now you just place in the dots. So in terms of your memory, the difficult part is in the production phase (typing), not the storage and retrieval. ...' Nice explanation. The way I remembered it was 'del' 'icio' 'us', pretty much the pattern you describe. '... And pioneers don't follow guidelines, because guidelines were based on the pioneers. ...' maybe that should have been a guideline.

Does folksonomy qualify as a good name? I registered a name that violates almost every point in every guideline list I have read to date. To oops or not to oops.

bootload 20y ago

'... folksonomy qualify as a good name ...' The irony of a site not following it's own suggestions. Maybe the suggestions are skewed to theoretical commercial sites. Anyway they are only suggestions. For every case you could find a valid corollary. Delicious is a great one. Just how did it get so popular with that name?

whacked_new 20y ago
del.icio.us is hard as hell to type. Here is my speculation. First, "del" and "us" are easy to remember. Now you just place in the dots. So in terms of your memory, the difficult part is in the production phase (typing), not the storage and retrieval. Second, I imagine most of its initial users were relatively well educated and web-wise. Third, the lack of .com makes it unique, and at its time, a pioneer. The pioneer always has imitators, and we have seen plenty. Flickr is another one of those "pioneers." And pioneers don't follow guidelines, because guidelines were based on the pioneers. So much for these tips; they should make a portfolio demonstrating how creative they are, like logo firms do. "Here are some example names we've come up with: 1. Folksonomy..." 4 syllables, 10 characters, and if you type properly, the second half of the word uses way too much index-finger.
- bootload 20y ago
  '... First, "del" and "us" are easy to remember. Now you just place in the dots. So in terms of your memory, the difficult part is in the production phase (typing), not the storage and retrieval. ...' Nice explanation. The way I remembered it was 'del' 'icio' 'us', pretty much the pattern you describe. '... And pioneers don't follow guidelines, because guidelines were based on the pioneers. ...' maybe that should have been a guideline.