I think some market research could be a great thing. I have some contacts in that field - I'll see if I can scare up some volunteer effort from someone who knows what they're doing.
On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Stephen Michel <stephen.mic...@tufts.edu> wrote: > I'll also put forward, I ***really*** (3 stars!) like 'help fund' as the > first two words of our slogan. > > I think we're nearing a couple of final options. Perhaps it would be a good > idea to conduct some (informal) "market research"? Make a survey that lists > a couple of our top choices and ask a few questions about what associations > they bring to mind (ex, 'What do you think "Snowdrift.coop: help fund > digital commons" does?'). > > > On September 20, 2015 3:29:41 PM EDT, Aaron Wolf <aa...@snowdrift.coop> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On 09/20/2015 03:34 AM, mray wrote: >>> >>> On 19.09.2015 21:10, Aaron Wolf wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> @"we": >>>>> "we" might be less inclusive than "together", but my point was that it >>>>> addresses the human factor at all. (unlike "funding free culture"). >>>>> "we" is almost as important as the financial and freedom parts of us. >>>>> "together" overreaches in that aspect in my opinion. >>>>> Let's face it: We are a closed club! We ask people to get on board, >>>>> open >>>>> up an account and trust their money with us. Our whole point is to >>>>> persuade people to join the in-group. Not drawing a line makes that >>>>> hard. >>>>> "we" is also short. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Although subtle, the ".coop" part of the name already includes the >>>> community aspect. Aesthetically, I like "funding" better than "we >>>> fund", >>>> and the "ing" part emphasizes the ongoing aspect of things. I don't >>>> feel >>>> strongly here though. >>> >>> >>> The reason I value the "we" so strongly is because we need to make clear >>> that snowdrift is something to be part of. "funding" alone makes it >>> remain unclear how the funding is done, but this is the *VERY* essence >>> of our cause, it is "WE" who are funding this. not some snowdrift >>> entity. >>> along with "we fund" any appeal like "join us" makes so much more sense, >>> it just fits way better. >>> aesthetically i don't care about either form that much. >>> "We fund" is more dynamic than "funding" I think, though. >>> >> >> >> I'm not sure about the dynamicness of "we fund" over "funding". I really >> like the >> "ing", however, I agree about the collective / join us issue. >> >> I wish it wasn't as long, but the feeling of togetherness is better >> spelled out. Ignoring length, "Working together to fund the digital >> commons" is the best way to completely get all the meaning. Another >> would be "collective funding of the digital commons" or "social funding >> for the digital commons" or "coming together to fund the digital >> commons" or, how about: "join us in funding the digital commons!" or >> shorter version of that, "fund the digital commons with us!" or, I like >> this best of my little brainstorm here: "help us fund the digital >> commons!" variations of that: "help fund the digital commons" or "let's >> fund the digital commons" … >> >> I'm not opposed to "we" entirely, but I would like to get feedback from >> others and see what others think of variations like I just posted. >> >>> >>>> >>>> ... >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Let me be completely clear: the *only* reason I think it's okay at all >>>> to consider a slogan that just says "free" but doesn't include "open" >>>> is >>>> because we actually *want* projects on Snowdrift.coop to be accessible >>>> at no-charge, gratis. So, we *are* talking about funding the work to >>>> make things that are then gratis to the world. So, emphasizing that >>>> we're building a no-charge commons is OKAY. Thus, I don't totally >>>> reject >>>> "free" alone. But we shouldn't fool ourselves, in a short slogan, >>>> "free" >>>> will continue to emphasize gratis no matter what we do. It does not >>>> bring to >>>> mind a distinction between FLO and proprietary for most people. >>>> The word that does that best for most English speakers is "open". And >>>> "open" is a word where Bryan's point stands: our main objection is that >>>> others use it in ways we don't like, and maybe that isn't a strong >>>> enough objection. >>> >>> >>> This is what I mean by fuzziness that I'm willing to accept in a slogan. >>> "free" isn't precise enough to exactly phrase what we mean, *BUT* the >>> whole gratis angle plays in our hands, too. After all the most relevant >>> freedom for people in our case is to get digital goods without cost! >>> Sure the freedom to inspect and change does not get explicitly included >>> as we would like, but I see we can do that well enough later where we >>> don't have the pressure to be brief and catchy. >>> And "free" isn't wrong! If it was it would not matter how, short >>> positive and catchy it is. >>> We just have to rely on people to >>> read _at least_ a bit more about the >>> project than our slogan. >>> I even see how we have a _freedom_ to leave things a open in terms of >>> exact interpretation, "free" is after all a very broad term. >>> >> >> >> Yes, so accepting the gratis fuzziness, I don't see "free" in our slogan >> as unacceptable, but I still dislike the lack of clarity, and the >> inconsistency in terminology. >> >>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> What about: >>>>> "we fund digital commons" ? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I just really prefer the aesthetics of "funding the digital commons" >>>> more than "we fund the digital commons". Hard to put >>>> into words. I think >>>> we need the "the" either way. >>>> >>>> In defense of the "digital commons" as the direction (with either "we" >>>> or "…ing"), it avoids inconsistency with FLO elsewhere, avoids >>>> partisanship on the FLO wording debate, it accurately describes our >>>> mission, and we can build on it from there to explain to people *what* >>>> the digital commons is, and that FLO terms are necessary to be truly >>>> part of the commons… >>>> >>>> Reflecting on this now, a bit after I wrote it, I think "digital >>>> commons" is probably the best balance of everything. >>>> >>>> To build on Paul's post, "funding the commons" seems the most core >>>> thing, but we aren't funding parks and roads actually, and so "digital >>>> commons" does remove the vagueness substantially. >>>> >>>> My only complaint about "digital commons" is that it emphasizes >>>> something incidental, the medium for sharing. I want to emphasize the >>>> importance of journalism, >>>> science, music, art… and not seem like this is >>>> a site focused on concerns of technophiles. But that's a minor concern >>>> we can deal with otherwise and doesn't seem enough to reject this >>>> proposal. >>>> >>>> I think "funding the digital commons" is good and significantly better >>>> in many important ways over "we fund free culture". I would be happiest >>>> if we had a better word than "digital" and I don't really like "funding >>>> the internet commons" or "funding the online commons" >>> >>> >>> I'd leave "the" out for brevities sake alone. It does not seem to add >>> anything other than length. As a native German speaker I'm often tempted >>> to add too many "the"s, but I don't miss it here. "the digital commons" >>> somehow suggests to me that there is an established term that it refers >>> to. But afaik there isn't. >>> >> >> >> "we fund commons" actually doesn't work well natively in English. >> "commons" does not equal >> "the commons". It's similar to "internet" >> versus "the internet", we *can* say "we'll connect on the internet", but >> we never say "we'll connect on internet" — even though we *could* say >> that, nobody does and it sounds quite weird. Another similar term is >> "arts" vs "the arts". "We support arts" sounds very weird, "we support >> the arts" sounds normal. When talking about the *concept* the general >> thing and not some *countable* plural, the "the" is basically required. >> >> To me. "we fund digital commons" sounds like "we don't just fine that >> digital common, we fund this other one too, in fact, we fund a bunch of >> commons. And the term "common" as a noun is extremely weird, basically >> unused in common (as an adjective) English, whereas the term "the >> commons" is not so rare, sounds okay. >> >> ToI also know from experience that if we use it a lot, my mind's >> reaction to "fund digital commons" as "AAEENT ERROR BAD ENGLISH, >> WHERE'S >> THE 'THE'" *will* go away eventually, because that's happened to me >> multiple times before, like when I first heard the programming term "a >> closure" but then got more used to it. However, if I have that bad >> reaction initially, others may also. So, I definitely vote for "the" in >> "the digital commons". And I'd only accept losing the "the" if a >> supermajority of people we run it by think it sounds fine without the >> "the". If most people, especially English-speaking natives, think it's >> fine as "we fund digital commons" (ugh that still sounds so bad to me), >> I would probably accept that it's just me, but I worry it sounds bad to >> basically all native English speakers. >> >> >>> hm.. what I found was this: >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Commons >>> is that a problem for us? >>> >> >> >> I looked into it, and it really could be an issue. >> >> >> http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=78620698&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch >> >> That one is not really covering us, it's educational/training services, >> but… >> >> >> https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=77171944&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch >> >> "Online services, namely, design, creation, hosting, and maintenance of >> websites for educational organizations containing scholarly data, >> information, and digital content " >> >> That definitely isn't exactly us, but we could still >> *not* be called >> "Digital Commons", however, having a slogan, not a name, and one that >> simply *includes* "digital commons" and we aren't exactly about hosting >> scholarly data, but still, lots of overlap… I dunno… >> >> Clearly "digital commons" is also a recognized generic language term: >> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/digital_commons >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_commons_%28economics%29 >> >> That last one reaffirms our use of the term so strongly, that it makes >> me like the term even more for our slogan. >> >> Incidentally, "fund the digital commons" as a complete phrase in an >> online search shows only results about Snowdrift.coop already! The >> phrase I used in our fund drive was "Help launch Snowdrift.coop to >> fund >> the digital commons" >> >>> my favorites currently are: >>> >>> #1 "we fund free culture" >>> #2 "we fund digital commons" >>> #3 "we fund the digital commons" >>> >> >> >> Despite my loss aversion over things I like about the current slogan, >> I'll leave that behind and say: I like some form of "…fund… digital >> commons" best, whether it has the "ing" or "we" or another variation >> from my stuff above. I think "the digital commons" with the "the" is the >> best we've got. I suppose if we had to avoid the trademark issue, >> "online commons" is, well, I don't love it… >> >> -Aaron >> > > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop > https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
