change the name from gittip to something else #138

Closed
whit537 opened this Issue Jul 12, 2012 · 181 comments

Projects

None yet
@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 12, 2012

The word "git" is somewhat problematic because of its association with GitHub and programming. The word "tip" is non-ideal because restaurant tips aren't really gifts. There's a ticket about changing the nomenclature we use from tipper and tippee to donor and donee (#136). This ticket is about rebranding the whole site.


The best alternative in my (not large) stable is:

https://whoever.im/

How does that look to you? I think it's not bad, for a personal funding platform. I think it's pretty strong, actually. "Whoever I am" rolls off the tongue easier than "Gittip," and it evokes personhood and freedom. I checked whoeveriam.com, and unfortunately it is taken but unused. Meh.

A bigger deal for me is that with Heroku we can't use https://whoever.im/, only https://www.whoever.im/. That is, "[n]aked domains (also known as bare or apex domains) are not supported." They used to be called IP SSL and cost $100/mo, but that's now deprecated. Here's the details on why. We would have to choose, and my inclination honestly would be to leave the warmth and comfort of Heroku, in order to look more like https://github.com/ and https://twitter.com/. :-(

@steveklabnik

You can do what I do with my book project: have a home page at whoever.im, click signup, it goes to secure.whoever.im

@jezdez
jezdez commented Jul 12, 2012

Have a look at the ALIAS record from dnsimple for the "naked domains": http://blog.dnsimple.com/introducing-the-alias-record/

@mitsuhiko

There are more problems with naked domains than just dns. It's the www. prefix really that bad?

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 12, 2012

@steveklabnik, @jezdez Cool, thank you for the suggestions.

Is the www. prefix really that bad?

Dunno ... what other problems are there? :)

Also, this is sort of secondary. The main question is whether the Gittip brand is fundamentally flawed.

@mitsuhiko

CNAMEs not working on that level, very limited cookie control (can't have cookies just for the www. part), it's harder to recognize urls with the scheme removed, wildcard ssl certificates don't work for the naked domain etc. All things considered it's just a lot more hassle for not showing for bytes to the user.

@whitmo
whitmo commented Jul 12, 2012

+1. though I would pick a name that is still tip / gift related.

and... maybe eventually add a way to pay toward an actual gift vs. simply payments (yeah yeah, patches welcome). I make the point because I think it would be interesting to add a complement the BM idea of a currency free "gift" economy. Not exclusively, just as an option.

@mitsuhiko

What about “periodic” as a name?

@timothyfcook
Contributor

whoever.im is okay. not quite right though.

It seems like .do domains are now available.

give.do is available. "Give me support so I can Do xyz"
or giveto.do

Or, similar to your suggestion. whateveri.do is available

Other Ideas:

letme.do
thank.do
soican.do
goodto.do
letus.do

@joeyespo
Contributor

What about hinting at open source somehow? http://opentip.com or http://opengift.com. Might even be able to play more on the word 'open' here, even though tips are largely anonymous. Tie it back into the open company you're aiming for.

Now, is the focus on those who want to tip or those receiving them? The latter is a shift. It would be something you the hacker would want to share. Whereas the current name 'Gittip' sounds more for those seeking to give the tip.

I do like the 'periodic'/'recurring' idea. That would make for a good tool to follow Kickstarter with. Kickstarter to get initial funding and demand. Continued with [new Gittip name here].

@joeyespo
Contributor

Another one. It's for sale, though unfortunately not for cheap: http://fund.me

Maybe something along those lines though? http://tip.me is also taken, but not actively used.

@chrismdp

Slightly boring but something like http://openfund.com?

http://freeme.to
http://freemeto.be
http://freemetobe.com
(all available) ?

@chrismdp

Or something around the word "grant"? Minigrant? Microgrant? Crowdgrant?

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 26, 2012

View from Australia (via HN):

Historically, Australians don't tip. During much of the the 20th century Australia had quite a strong (relative to the US) tradition of socialism and unionism, resulting in a strong set of minimum employment conditions. There was very much a view that a decent living wage was an entitlement and a matter of dignity, not something that a worker should have to stoop to collect. People didn't tip, since the common perception was that the potential tipee was as equally entitled to a minimum wage as the potential tipper. Indeed, I'd say that people actively didn't tip as an act of homage to equality.

Tipping is probably more common today than in the past, and the above is being eroded, but I think the above is still generally true. A tip is rarely expected, or let on to be expected, as that is a sure fire way not to get a tip.

I mention the above, in the supposition that it has connotations for a site like gittip that liberally uses the word "tipping". Some cultures don't do tipping. As an Australian, I'd be more inclined if the idea of compensation was being sold on a "equity" (as in fairness) basis rather than a giving basis. I know it's semantics, but semantics does influence decisions.

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 26, 2012

Another view from Australia (same HN thread):

The American "I am obliged to give you a tip because minimum wage sucks" doesn't seem to be what gittip is about. In fact, it's much closer to the Australian idea "I am giving you more money because of your impressive performance, and I want to say thanks".

In Australia, I tip when service is awesome. In America, I tip when service isn't absolutely terrible.

Full disclosure: I am Australian

@turnshek

Hey Chad, we haven't met yet but I hope to soon...

autograt.com

Servers in restaurants call the automatically included gratuity for large parties an "autograt". I'll leave you to reason through the implications. I actually think it's incredibly well aligned.

I just reserved the domain in case you want it.

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 26, 2012

Thanks @turnshek, for the intro, thoughts, and domain reservation. :-)

Was actually coming over here to say that I just bought:

http://www.gfftd.com/

I also reserved @gfftd on Twitter and GitHub. Has the advantage of probably still working with @dmdj03's design over on #66.

@timothyfcook
Contributor

why two 'f' s if gfftd.com ?

autoGrat.com is kinda nice.

You could still have the (G) logo, since "Grat" is the functional word there.

it almost sounds familiar

makes me think of autocrat / autocracy, which is a very different sort of meaning.
also makes me think of autograph, which is irrelevant.

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 26, 2012

Two effs because the domain wasn't available in other variants.

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 26, 2012

Also, gifted.com is taken but not used. Down the road we could have a shot at it.

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 26, 2012

In the mean time there's also http://gifted.im/.

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 26, 2012

Oh, well. My latest moment of name-changing insanity has passed. Back to Gittip.com for now. :-)

@psineur
psineur commented Jul 26, 2012

Few! Saw tweet about gfftd (sounds like pfff), thank god you don't want to rename to it.
Other suggestions:
gifttip
gifthub

@pfrazee
pfrazee commented Jul 26, 2012

openwire
freewire
fosswire

@turnshek

Hey no problem, you can never have too many domain names. D:

I like that "autograt" is already in the common lexicon and essentially describes the literal function of the service, but it's really the "gratuity" part that I think is worth mulling over. It's likely the closest a single term can come to the spirit of what you're trying to do here.

Whatever you go with, just make sure it makes sense for street fashion photographers, community organizers, font creators, or business bloggers. The foss / programmery stuff is probably the wrong direction.

@strand
Contributor
strand commented Jul 30, 2012

opengrant.com is available.

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

@turnshek Good reminder re: broader appeal. Could you say more about how {Gittip} can work for non-programmery folks? I want to take it in that direction (#80) but obviously I'm programmery so input from a different perspective is welcome.

@strand I think opengrant.com is pretty strong. The "crowd-sourced genius grants for the rest of us" hook has seemed to work for a lot of people. A grant falls clearly in the category of "gift" without the question mark that "tip" introduces. What I really like, though, is that it emphasizes the aggregate and not the individual contribution. The "grant" is the crowd's gift of $1,000 per week to a person, whereas a "gift tip" is just my $1 per week contribution. The power is in the aggregation.

I bought opengrant.com and opengrant.org.

Perspectives on OpenGrant?

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

OpenGrant works for both individuals and groups. An organization or group or project (see #27) can receive a grant as well as an individual.

@ironfroggy

At first "opengrant" didn't really sound right, but your explanation @whit537 makes a lot of sense.

@steveklabnik

👍 opengrant.org, I like it a lot.

@kennethreitz
Contributor

opengrant sounds amazing

@chmullig

+1 opengrant, if you're changing the name.

Are people thinking .org or .com? I like .org because it suggests that opengrant's business isn't to make money directly. However I like .com since the point is the transfer of money to individuals, which is commercey...

@kennethreitz
Contributor

That is, assuming this will become a non-profit organization.

@brandon-rhodes

I suspect that “grant” is a poor choice that will limit attention because of its very narrow meaning: grants, in normal English, are made by governments, not individuals; they are created for some specific purpose, different nonprofits compete in a grant-writing process to argue that they can fulfill the grant's mandate, and then one of them gets the money; and they have to be able to survive an audit later to show that the money really went toward the stated grant purpose.

In other words, a “grant” has to be spent on something specific. Anyone at a University or government, at least, would assume that “opengrant” made it easier for non-profits to browse and then apply for specifically-earmarked monies.

The word, then, would obscure the fact that individuals can participate on either end of the “granting” operation, and — more importantly — would imply that people are promising to do something specific with the money in the future (like, “Kenneth MUST do more work on requests with this grant, he can't use it for beer or some other module”), whereas this weekend you strongly indicated that these monies are to serve as the thanks we give each other for how useful the things are that we have ALREADY created in the past.

@jlkeiper

-1 on using "grant". "tip" is good. I would think these might be cool (no idea if they are taken):

  • tip4code.com
  • tip.me
  • tipacoder.com
  • codetip.com
  • tipper.com (does Al Gore own that one?)
  • tipstream.com
@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

@mitechie and @hansent point out that OpenGrant puts pressure on us to widen beyond GitHub, which is indeed something I think we want to do anyway (#80). Good call:

The day a second service works I'd go for the rebrand and hit the news trail like mad with it though. It's a good new name.

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

@jlkeiper Say more? I like grant because it emphasizes the aggregate, whereas tip emphasizes the individual contributions that in and of themselves aren't that interesting. Also note that we don't want to lock ourselves into "coders." See @turnshek's comments above and also #80.

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

@kennethreitz See #101 for registering {Gittip} as a charity.

@joeyespo
Contributor

+1 for opengrant.org. Would you redirect opengrant.com to it?

@pfrazee
pfrazee commented Jul 31, 2012

+1 grant. It feels like what's happening is a grant: a crowd charter to pursue work with a social (rather than fiscal) return. Good vibe; clear roots in an existing practice.

@hansent
hansent commented Jul 31, 2012

i like opengrant, just throwing out someother ones for purposes of brainstorming:

crowdgrant(s)
openfunds
creativegrant(s)
shareback

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

Anyone at a University or government, at least, would assume that “opengrant” made it easier for non-profits to browse and then apply for specifically-earmarked monies.

@brandon-rhodes I suspect this is where @jlkeiper is coming from as well?

In other words, a “grant” has to be spent on something specific.

The counter-example, of course, is the MacArthur Fellowship, "nicknamed the Genius Grant" [wikipedia]. The "Open" in OpenGrant could start to suggest the no-strings-attached nature of the gift here.

I see where you're coming from that "grant" has a specific meaning for a certain segment of the population. The English namespace is crowded. I think it's going to be easier to explain what we mean by "grant" to the university and government set than it would be to explain what we mean by "tip" to the general population. Correct me if I'm wrong, but people at universities and in government are probably fairly likely to know about the MacArthur genius grants, right? So we can just say "think genius grants" and we're most of the way there? The fact that the MacArthur Fellowships are nicknamed Genius Grants in the first place may indicate that the word "grant" probably just means "free money" to most people.

@jlkeiper

@whit537 "grant" means "one time gift with strings attached" to me, but that's probably because I work at AMPATH / OpenMRS / Regenstrief Institute. Also, grants renew but not like your system is set up ... but these restrictions are typical real-world implementations of a word that ideally means something much simpler.

Also, understand the domain name itself has to lend to common interpretation. Tipping is a very common thing. Giving a grant is reserved for academia and the philanthropic.

If branching out from just coders, tip.me is an acceptable simple and possibly catchy domain.

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

I've reserved OpenGrant on GitHub and (importantly) Twitter.

I searched for opengrant and #opengrant on Twitter and got nothing but a couple tweets that are part of this conversation. :-)

I searched for opengrant on Google and got:

  • List of Currently Open Grant Competitions
  • Before applying for an Open Grant
  • Open Grant Program Open to proposals
  • etc.

I.e., from the university / government domain that @brandon-rhodes is reminding us of.

@pfrazee
pfrazee commented Jul 31, 2012

@jlkeiper tip.me is pretty good

Also, I'd bet the divide on opengrant has to do with personal experiences with grant systems. I don't have any.

@jlkeiper

@whit537 just having this much discussion about the term "grant" vs "tip" or any other variation (gift, bonus, boost, etc) lends to a need for simplicity and possible unrelated domain name.

How about reaching into your linguistics background for some related and hip-sounding alternatives?

@hansent
hansent commented Jul 31, 2012

"grant is reserved for academia and the philanthropic" @jlkeiper @brandon-rhodes

I do see where you guys are coming from, especially having applied for research and business grants before. Overall I'm not opposed to using the word though...nothing wrong with a little disruption and trying to change the meaning of a common terminilogy (I guess that goes for any words though ) :P

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

@jlkeiper Okay, so that falls under the "grant already means something" argument against. I'm willing to accept the task of explaining what we mean by "grant" to people for whom it means "one-time gift with strings attached."

Are there other arguments against OpenGrant?

@joeyespo
Contributor

@jlkeiper Good point, "grant" does have some subtle implications. The "open" part of the name could be what mentally detaches the strings though parhaps.

I do like the name opengrant though. It's catchy.

The main difference is that the name "tip" sounds like a giver-oriented site, while the name "grant" sounds like a place you'd go to request grants. Attracting givers should be more heavily focused to make the site successful. However this attraction could be part of the marketing effort. The name, with or without a change, won't do that alone.

@jlkeiper

@whit537 as long as it conveys the purpose of the service, it is a nice and tidy name (three syllables, has "open" in it).

@joeyespo I totally agree, "open" helps and makes it appealing to the open source community. I guess we are not really targeting the closed source (rather, open-agnostic) community ... or are we?

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

@jlkeiper @pfraze tip.me is taken. Even if it weren't, I believe we have to have a .com to reach a mass audience, even if we redirect it to a .org or something else.

just having this much discussion about the term "grant" vs "tip" or any other variation

@jlkeiper I'm seeing a lot more convergence around the word "grant" than anything else to date. I accept that it means "one-time gift with strings attached" to people in a certain industry, and I'm willing to take that risk, given the convergence otherwise and the fact that we now own the name in DNS, Twitter, and GitHub.

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

At this point I count +8 and -2 on OpenGrant.

@steveklabnik

Tipping is a very common thing.

Not outside of the US. ;)

@jlkeiper

@steveklabnik good point!

I just hope that the name OpenGrant will convey the micro-gift style that "tip" does.

@kennethreitz
Contributor

'Grant' reminds me of "pool of money, no strings attached, to do what you see fit with".

I know that's often not the case at all, but that's what pops into my brain.

@ironfroggy

I like the idea that even if this use of "Grant" doesn't match what a lot of people might think, maybe it should be what they think, and OpenGrant/Gittip can change that.

@timothyfcook
Contributor

OpenGrant is very matter-of-fact... definitely the most obvious possible name, but not a shallow one. It's excellent that the Domains were available....

Its a good name for a broad appeal.

The only negative is it being perhaps TOO matter-of-fact...

@strand
Contributor
strand commented Jul 31, 2012

The problem I am hearing is grants are typically provided by govt or non-profit foundations...

I think the grant-like aspect of this that should be focused on is rewarding people and organizations for work they already do/want to do. Ie. "OpenGrant makes it possible for Steve to live his dream of writing open source full time."

On Jul 31, 2012, at 8:06 AM, Chad Whitacrereply@reply.github.com wrote:

At this point I count +8 and -2 on OpenGrant.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whit537/www.gittip.com/issues/138#issuecomment-7401094

@hansent
hansent commented Jul 31, 2012

bettergrants. Grants for making the world better?

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 31, 2012, at 10:22 AM, Strand McCutchen
reply@reply.github.com
wrote:

The problem I am hearing is grants are typically provided by govt or non-profit foundations...

I think the grant-like aspect of this that should be focused on is rewarding people and organizations for work they already do/want to do. Ie. "OpenGrant makes it possible for Steve to live his dream of writing open source full time."

On Jul 31, 2012, at 8:06 AM, Chad Whitacrereply@reply.github.com wrote:

At this point I count +8 and -2 on OpenGrant.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whit537/www.gittip.com/issues/138#issuecomment-7401094


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whit537/www.gittip.com/issues/138#issuecomment-7401531

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

Tipping is a very common thing.

Not outside of the US. ;)

@jlkeiper @steveklabnik E.g., there's a couple comments earlier in this thread about tipping in Australia. It's actually closer to the meaning in Gittip than the American practice:

In Australia, I tip when service is awesome. In America, I tip when service isn't absolutely terrible.

@kennethreitz
Contributor

openfund.org would be cool, if it wasn't taken.

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

Unfortunately, the plural is squatted:

😞

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

The only negative is it being perhaps TOO matter-of-fact...

@timothyfcook Do you want to make a case for this? Otherwise it sounds like you are +0.

@kennethreitz
Contributor

I say grab opengrant.org, available domains don't get better than that :)

@hansent
hansent commented Jul 31, 2012

I say grab opengrant.org, available domains don't get better than that :)
agreed, even if your not sure on the name yet. I'll chip in $5 if you
need money to register the domain (no strings attached.

Thomas

@jezdez
jezdez commented Jul 31, 2012

I have to admit I had to look up "grant" but it does make sense to me now. +1

EDIT: actually I like OpenFunds better.

@timothyfcook
Contributor

@whit537 grabbed the domain just a bit ago, so we got it I believe.

I'll give opengrant. a +1

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

With @timothyfcook and @jezdez I believe we are +10 / -2.

@evenality

I'll chime in that I'm accustomed to both forms of the term grant as meaning "strings attached" and as @whit537 mentioned with "no strings attached other than just keep doing what you've been doing." We can go in circles all day but as we intend to widen our audience we'll always have to deal with language, culture and ethnocentrism such as with the usage and application of the idea of a tip. What is least offensive to the largest percentage while explaining to the others that we are all about being "open?"

Maybe a spin on "grant" to sound a bit edgier:
grantry
grantery
grantary

@jeromegn
Contributor

OpenGrant is great. + it's not tied to a technology.

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

Also, I am hearing .org. Anyone want to champion .com?

I would lean towards .com because open companies are not non-profits, and .com is sort of the default TLD.

@kennethreitz
Contributor

.orgs can also be used for for-profit institutions.

http://monome.org comes to mind.

@evenality

.com and simply have .org (or any other gTLD you get) redirect.

@kennethreitz
Contributor

.org and simply have .com (or any other gTLD you get) redirect. :D

@cz
cz commented Jul 31, 2012

Having worked in the nonprofit world for years, "grant" has the wrong ring to me. Something with "fund" feels like a better fit, but maybe that's just me.

@domenkozar

I own openfunds.org if you want :)

@bradmontgomery

I'm +1 for OpenGrant. I also looked it up, and it may be interesting to think of "Grant" as a verb rather than a noun:

As a noun, a Grant is

a sum of money given by an organization, esp. a government, for a particular purpose.

As a verb:

agree to give or allow (something requested) to, e.g. I grant you permission
to give something (a right, power, property, etc.) formally or legally to, e.g. grant me a right, or grant me some property

You could think of it as:

  • With this money, I grant you permission/ability to keep making the world a better place by doing whatever you see fit.
  • I'll give you some money (grant as a verb) to use as you see fit.
@pfrazee
pfrazee commented Jul 31, 2012

to me, .org feels like the organization giving the grants; feels like the traditional model
+1 .com

@steveklabnik

I champion .org because even if it's not registered with the state as a non-profit, it functions like one. ;)

@whit537 btw I just picked up Capital II and III ;)

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

@iElectric Thank you! :-D Would also need .com, Twitter, and GitHub, and then we have the singular to contend with. Anyone else want to champion openfund[s]? @chrismdp, @hansent, and @kennethreitz have mentioned it.

@cz
cz commented Jul 31, 2012

+1 for openfund(s)

peerfunded.com/org is also available if that resonates with anyone...

@evenality

openfunds is lovely! But you're going to lose a lot of traffic(for first-time users) because of the pluralization. openfund has been active since 1999...I don't think it would go for very cheap if you needed it.

@pfrazee
pfrazee commented Jul 31, 2012

+1 peerfunded, +0.5 openfunds

@domenkozar

I also own fundhub.org :-)

@jezdez
jezdez commented Jul 31, 2012

Oh, OpenFunds.org! I like that better than OpenGrant.

+1 OpenFunds.org
-1 OpenGrant

@ptone
ptone commented Jul 31, 2012

-1 for using the word grant - it is usually a 1 time thing, disbursed by an organization through a process of review and committee - not the ethos that has sprung up here. The word I'm thinking of somehow here is patronage - not sure yet how to work that into a domain name. Maybe devpatron - or openpatronage - not very catchy I guess. Other conceptual words here are pledge, backing, thanks - but OpenFunds is solid.

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

Here I count @jeromegn and @bradmontgomery as +1, and @evenality and @cz as -1.

In IRC I count @fijal and @yano as +1, and @bruceadams and @issackelly as -1.

Curent tally: +14 / -6 on OpenGrant

Furthermore, I count (including @jezdez from IRC):

.org 3
.com 2

@bradmontgomery

fwiw, I'd also be +1 to either OpenFunds (funds as a noun) or OpenFund (fund as a verb).

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

I also own fundhub.org :-)

@iElectric, you are inspiring. 🚀 🍰

I like fundhub.org. Anyone else?

@pfrazee
pfrazee commented Jul 31, 2012

+1 fundhub

@hansent
hansent commented Jul 31, 2012

+1 fundhub

@bruceadams
Contributor

+1 fundhub :-)

@joeyespo
Contributor

+1 fundhub

"Social funding" comes to mind thanks to Github.

@jeromegn
Contributor

In light of @ptone's comments, I also think grant isn't right. FundHub or OpenFunds is cool. +1 there.

@jezdez
jezdez commented Jul 31, 2012

+1 fundhub

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

It works as a name. It rolls off the tongue. OpenGrant or OpenFunds is much clunkier by comparison.

There's no plural to worry about.

http://twitter.com/fundhub is taken. Is that you, @iElectric?

Fundhub.com is taken, since May 24, 1999.

@brandon-rhodes

+1 fundhub

@domenkozar

Sadly http://twitter.com/fundhub is not mine, but maybe twitter guys can help :)

@steveklabnik

maybe twitter guys can help :)

They won't. :(

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

It's hard to get Twitter to intervene. I see it as the flip side of their free speech advocacy, and can't complain.

@steveklabnik

twitter

free speech

lolz

@kennethreitz
Contributor

I can do it, I've done it twice.

Create a new account that will replace the current 'fundhub' with a temp name. I can take care of the rest.

@evenality

How important is the twitter name exact match? Here it is more common to see some blending of the name. You would normally provide a direct link to the twitter page from the gittip.com page right?

@kennethreitz
Contributor

K I'm on it. I should have it in a day or so.

@timothyfcook
Contributor

fundhub.com ...makes me think of wall street.

-1

@strand
Contributor
strand commented Jul 31, 2012

I think this conversation is mostly bikeshedding.

I don't think what we prefer, as techies, matters very much. Whichever name appeals to a general audience is a preferable option. It would be better to consult with a marketing specialist than to try to make a committee decision.

On Jul 31, 2012, at 9:22 AM, Jerome Gravel-Niquetreply@reply.github.com wrote:

In light of @ptone's comments, I also think grant isn't right. FundHub or OpenFunds is cool. +1 there.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whit537/www.gittip.com/issues/138#issuecomment-7403508

@moliware

+1 fundhub

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

@kennethreitz !

@strand It felt like bikeshedding to me the last two times around (see top of thread). This time it feels different to me. It feels like positive community interaction. I feel like we're converging.

@kennethreitz
Contributor

@whit537 give me the signal once a final decision has been made :)

@steveklabnik

Consensus is a complicated process ;)

@joeyespo
Contributor

@whit537 @kennethreitz I have the @fund_hub Twitter handle. I reached out to someone I think owns it. I can let you take over though.

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

@kennethreitz I genuinely appreciate the enthusiasm, but I don't think it's in our best interest to be pulling strings at Twitter to get a squatted handle released. Fundhub is about doing things openly and above board, not back room deals and special favors.

I think we should tweet bomb @fundhub, and if the owner is not as generous as @iElectric then we can make due with @fundhub_org or @fund_hub (thanks @joeyespo).

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

@iElectric Thanks. We'll take this over to #66 re: visual design once we reach a decision.

@kennethreitz
Contributor

@whit537 Oh it's not a backroom deal, it's an official internal tool that Twitter has in place.

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

@kennethreitz Of course, if you're comfortable being open and transparent and public about the process you go through to recover a squatted handle, then that's a different story. Can you publish the communications you have with Twitter?

@kennethreitz
Contributor

Absolutely!

I'll hold off until a name is actually chosen though :)

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

@timothyfcook Say more? Could we get some other not-so-geek input? Maybe @rchlmrtn has an opinion?

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

@kennethreitz Thank you. 🐰 :-)

@strand
Contributor
strand commented Jul 31, 2012

I dislike fundhub, and prefer opengrant.

That being said, I think they're both fine options, and would be interested in actually doing some testing outside this community to determine which has the greatest appeal to the world at large. Anyone experienced with A/B testing? We could figure out which name is more generally appealing with actual metrics.

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

@joeyespo You reached out to the owner of @fund_hub or @fundhub?

@dmdj03
dmdj03 commented Jul 31, 2012

I like openfunds. Fundhub may be mistaken for funhub.

@ironfroggy

+1 opengrant
-1 fundhub

-1 *hub actually

@joeyespo
Contributor

@whit537 I reached out to the owner of @fundhub. I have @fund_hub as a backup.

@andyweissman

-1 on opengrant. A tip (or some similar word) is a gesture, and generally a peer to peer gesture, and I think it's that gesture which works. A grant to me connotes some organization deeming it important to be giving the money. In other words, one feels like something horizontal, and one feels hierarchical. I vote for the horizontal approach.

@mattupstate

I think fundhub has a playful sound and connotation to it that might speak more easily to the general public. Whereas opengrant, solely based on the words 'open' and 'grant', has a more institutional connotation to the general public.

That being said, I'm thinking about how I would associate myself with the brand name with statements such as...

"I'm openly funded by ____"

or

"I'm open funded via ____"

or

"I'm funded through ____"

I can't seem to find a way to use the word grant in how I would speak about it so I'm leaning towards something with the word fund in it.

@psineur
psineur commented Jul 31, 2012

Fund me on the FundHub!
Sounds good! +1

Open grant sounds like old fart in comparison to fundhub XD

@whit537
Looks like you're approaching viral milestone - I've got 89 messages on mail from this issue :)

Отправлено с iPhone

31.07.2012, в 21:19, Joe Espositoreply@reply.github.com написал(а):

@whit537 I reached out to the owner of @fundhub. I have @fund_hub as a backup.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whit537/www.gittip.com/issues/138#issuecomment-7405236

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

@strand Can you say more about your preference?

Does anyone want to champion an A/B test between fundhub and opengrant? Personally I'm much more concerned about the level of agreement amongst people already involved. People guffawed when the iPad came out because of perceived overtones of menstruation. Presumably that would have come out in a survey, but then we'd have a worse name. iPad is what it should be called, and it only took about two months for everyone's associations to be changed.

Thanks to Kickstarter, et al., the word "fund" is in the process of taking on new connotations. The Kickstarter homepage loudly says: "Fund & Follow Creativity. Kickstarter is a funding platform for creative projects."

Fundhub.org is a strong name, in my opinion.

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

@andyweissman Thoughts on fundhub.org?

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

@mattupstate Fwiw, I've had the phrase in mind, "I'm personally funded on ______." I've thought that I want that to be a totally normal thing to say at a dinner party five years from now.

"Hey! So what do you do?"

"I'm personally funded."

"Oh?"

@andyweissman

@whit537 I don't know man, I like the quirky nature of gittip (though I dont like the spelling), its connotations of being started as part of the Github community. I also think .org gives this a top down feel which is not what you have created. Previously I invested in something called tipjoy which got at this a little more (though maybe too cutesy)?

@strand
Contributor
strand commented Jul 31, 2012

Like most responses on this thread, I have an emotional response to opengrant and fundhub. Opengrant sounds like something that would appeal to me, and strangely, I associate the feeling I have to that of public radio... Fundhub doesn't do it for me. I think that "open" is a value, while "hub" is a bike part.

And I don't think what I think matters all that much. What matters is what has a broad appeal to the most people, this seems like a clear case where A/B testing could make a decision well, especially as there seems to be a fair amount of momentum on both names. I think that give-folks-i-like-some-money-thru-the-internet is also a good name, if, you know, we can find metrics to support that.

I don't think how we as a group feel about these names matters... But we can actually get some data and figure out which names work. I haven't done A/B testing before, and I'm not sure what testing these names would entail, but I'm sure we could run a couple of small google campaigns with clickthrus to either opengrant.com or fundhub.com, with minimal info on those sites (coming soon) just to gauge how interested random surfers are in one name or another.

@steveklabnik

A/B testing is not a panacea. It's good for incremental improvements, but not really for something as fundamentally huge as this. Also, there are other testing methods that are arguably better, like bandit testing...

@evenality

Wow....now that is a name from the past that I had completely forgotten...tipjoy.

@mattupstate

@whit537 That's exactly what I was thinking and I really think that bodes well for the future of your brand to take on people from other industries and all walks of life. I can imagine independent artists, writers, and other creative types being able to produce more work through something like this.

@rmacy
rmacy commented Jul 31, 2012

I like what's going on here! and +1 for opengrant. +1 for .org as primary :)

@strand
Contributor
strand commented Jul 31, 2012

@steveklabnik Could you tell us more about bandit testing, and how we could apply it to the problem of choosing a name?

@hansent
hansent commented Jul 31, 2012

I feel like there is some consesus around fundhub (I like it btw);
thought dumping some more random ideas just in case:

bitfunds
bitgrants
peerfund(s)
p2pfunds
peer2funds
funds2peer

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Matt Wright
reply@reply.github.com
wrote:

@whit537 That's exactly what I was thinking and I really think that bodes well for the future of your brand to take on people from other industries. I can imagine independent artists, writers, and other creative types being able to produce more work through something like this.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whit537/www.gittip.com/issues/138#issuecomment-7406152

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

[M]y account was suspended after Twitter decided, at its own behest, to get in touch with a commercial partner in order to encourage them to have a hostile journalist removed from the Twitter-sphere.

@steveklabnik Gah! This is why Twitter needs to be an open company. ;-)

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

Fundhub may be mistaken for funhub.

@dmdj03 Or funtub. Point taken.

See also @mitechie on Twitter:

not a fan. Don't know why but when I say it comes out more funhub with a droppy the dog voice over. Might be the coffee talking.

@joeyespo
Contributor

@steveklabnik You referring to multi-armed bandit testing?

@hansent
hansent commented Jul 31, 2012

[M]y account was suspended after Twitter decided, at its own behest, to get in touch with a commercial partner in order > to encourage them to have a hostile journalist removed from the Twitter-sphere.

This was in response to inquiring about one of the twitter accounts in question?

@mstum
mstum commented Jul 31, 2012

As a european (German even) living in the US, some comments abour verbiage. Note that I'm not involved in Gittip, so my comments may be utterly useless, but then again, this is the internet :)

"Tip" to me is a voluntary payment for good service. I am deeply offended by any restaurant in the US that pulls stuff like "For parties over 8, we automatically add 15% gratuity" because it's not a "tip" but a flat price increase. I associate tipping with a hint of desperation, like a minimum wage worker working 3 jobs to make ends meet. In a sense, it applies to the image many people in the open source community[citation needed] seem to like to nurture, selfless heroes living of alms. (in that sense, "Donate" is even worse/more desperate)

"Grant" is something you do after school if you're good. You get some money for a project, but essentially it's just a stepping stone to get into a real job. The mental image of Grant: Help people get some experience and find a job in the enterprise.

"Fund" is entrepeneurship to me. It has the smell of money attached to it, which seems like a big turn-off for a lot of open source people[citation needed], but it seems to be what this project is encouraging: Work on open source, and be able to pay your rent or at least your food from it. Interestingly, "funding" is perceived bad (evil, faceless VCs pumping millions into a startup, making them abandon their values) while "crowdfunding" is perceived good (We, the people, helping someone to bring out their vision in it's purest form). Funding puts the person in a position of strength IMHO, giving the message "Hey, I have this product, I'm serious, I know about it, and I'd like you to help me", versus "Please, please give me a dime so I can pay rent for another month".

I helped crowdfund close to a hundred projects on Kickstarter, but I have zero interest in tipping or giving out a grant because I don't associate these words with long term sustainability.

I was about to suggest "Gitstarter" but really, that's not a good name (Still better than Indiegogo though), but it has the message that would grab my attention. A name away from Incubators/Angel Investment/Startups but still associated with the ideals behind crowdfunding would work for me because I'm not afraid to associate Open Source and money without betraying the ideals of Open Source.

I can't think of a good name though, so I might just have written a whole bunch of text for nothing, but maybe it's useful to someone :)

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

This was in response to inquiring about one of the twitter accounts in question?

@hansent Sorry, it was in response to a link that @steveklabnik posted above about Twitter and free speech.

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

Relevant snippet from IRC:

[12:19pm] ptone: +1 fundhub
[12:20pm] jezdez: hm, fundhub
[12:21pm] bruceadams: i like fundhub.org
[12:21pm] jezdez: yeah, indeed
[12:21pm] jezdez: even better than the prefix Open*
[12:21pm] ptone: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hub
[12:22pm] unsafe: I already said it on github (pfraze) but def +1 fundhub
[12:27pm] mjallday: +1 for fundhub.org
[12:27pm] yano: +1 for fundhub.org too (maybe fundswitch.org or fundrouter.org :-P)
[2:39pm] fijal: whit537: I'm +1 on fundhub
[3:23pm] issackelly: whit537: I like fundhub

@ironfroggy

What if all this debate was not needed? What if we needed need to pick a name? What if "Gittip" stayed, but could be accessed through a number of community run and/or targeted fronts? Maybe a group of standup poets want to run dimesforrhymes.org to fund their favorite performers, and this acts as a skinned interface to gittip with its own user profiles and its own boards?

if the problem is appealing to a general audience, maybe the better solution is to empower all the different potential audiences to appeal to their own?

@timothyfcook
Contributor

Oh the possibilities!

On Jul 31, 2012, at 2:55 PM, ironfroggy wrote:

What if all this debate was not needed? What if we needed need to pick a name? What if "Gittip" stayed, but could be accessed through a number of community run and/or targeted fronts? Maybe a group of standup poets want to run dimesforrhymes.org to fund their favorite performers, and this acts as a skinned interface to gittip with its own user profiles and its own boards?

if the problem is appealing to a general audience, maybe the better solution is to empower all the different potential audiences to appeal to their own?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whit537/www.gittip.com/issues/138#issuecomment-7408021

@chmullig

-1 on branding branching now.

This is a network. Let's get one great, valuable site. If down the road there's a desire to fork, then maybe. But we still haven't hit critical mass yet.

(plus it is open source, so if there's an overwhelming desire for dimesforehymes they can just do that entirely on their own regardless of what chad & co do with gittip)

On Jul 31, 2012, at 2:55 PM, ironfroggyreply@reply.github.com wrote:

What if all this debate was not needed? What if we needed need to pick a name? What if "Gittip" stayed, but could be accessed through a number of community run and/or targeted fronts? Maybe a group of standup poets want to run dimesforrhymes.org to fund their favorite performers, and this acts as a skinned interface to gittip with its own user profiles and its own boards?

if the problem is appealing to a general audience, maybe the better solution is to empower all the different potential audiences to appeal to their own?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whit537/www.gittip.com/issues/138#issuecomment-7408021

@ironfroggy

@chmullig In that case, maybe its premature to be rebranding at all right now.

@andyweissman

+1 to ironfroggy's thoughts

On Jul 31, 2012, at 2:55 PM, ironfroggyreply@reply.github.com wrote:

What if all this debate was not needed? What if we needed need to pick a name? What if "Gittip" stayed, but could be accessed through a number of community run and/or targeted fronts? Maybe a group of standup poets want to run dimesforrhymes.org to fund their favorite performers, and this acts as a skinned interface to gittip with its own user profiles and its own boards?

if the problem is appealing to a general audience, maybe the better solution is to empower all the different potential audiences to appeal to their own?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whit537/www.gittip.com/issues/138#issuecomment-7408021

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

Proposed: Rename Gittip.com to FundHub.org

Today is our third push on renaming and is by far the furthest we've gotten. If we don't decide to go with FundHub.org then I'm going to close this ticket and we'll stick with Gittip.com. We need to make a decision one way or another and get on with life, so let's say a 2/3 majority in favor of FundHub.org will carry the day, otherwise we'll stick with Gittip.com. Sound good? Scroll up to see discussion to date. Some milestones:

This is the last call for votes. I will update this comment with votes collected on GitHub, Twitter, IRC, and email. Voting is open until the activity dies down.

+17 / -9 = 65.4% in favor

+1

pfraze
joeyespo
jeromegn
jezdez
brandon-rhodes

kennethreitz
moliware
mattupstate
psineur
ptone

mjallday
yano
fijal
issackelly
italiano40

evenality
tito

+0

steveklabnik
cz
bradmontgomery
cmbeelby (twitter)
canweriotnow (twitter)

chmullig

-0

dmdj03
mstum
cosmin (twitter)
ironfroggy

-1

strand
andyweissman
mitechie
whitmo (twitter)
timothyfcook

rmacy
hansent
bruceadams
thiloplanz

@timothyfcook
Contributor

-1 for Fundhub.

On Jul 31, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Chad Whitacre wrote:

Proposed: Rename Gittip.com to FundHub.org

Today is our third push on renaming and is by far the furthest we've gotten. If we don't decide to go with FundHub.org then I'm going to close this ticket and we'll stick with Gittip.com. We need to make a decision one way or another and get on with life, so let's say a 2/3 majority in favor of FundHub.org will carry the day, otherwise we'll stick with Gittip.com. Sound good? Scroll up to see discussion to date. Some milestones:

This is the last call for votes. I will update this comment with votes collected on GitHub, Twitter, IRC, and email. Voting is open until the activity dies down.

+15 / -5 = 75% in favor

+1

pfraze
hansent
bruceadams
joeyespo
jeromegn

jezdez
brandon-rhodes
kennethreitz
moliware
mattupstate

psineur
ptone
mjallday
yano
fijal

issackelly

+0

steveklabnik
evenality
cz
bradmontgomery
cmbeelby (twitter)

canweriotnow (twitter)

-0

dmdj03
rmacy
mstum
cosmin (twitter)

-1

strand
ironfroggy
andyweissman
mitechie
whitmo (twitter)


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whit537/www.gittip.com/issues/138#issuecomment-7408743

@ghost
ghost commented Jul 31, 2012

+1 for fundhub

@rmacy
rmacy commented Jul 31, 2012

I say keep the branding the same, provide it as a infrastructure service and let others build services for other communities on top of it. People know gittip. Unless there is some need to start over, I don't see a point to changing it.

On Jul 31, 2012, at 2:23 PM, Chad Whitacrereply@reply.github.com wrote:

Proposed: Rename Gittip.com to FundHub.org

Today is our third push on renaming and is by far the furthest we've gotten. If we don't decide to go with FundHub.org then I'm going to close this ticket and we'll stick with Gittip.com. We need to make a decision one way or another and get on with life, so let's say a 2/3 majority in favor of FundHub.org will carry the day, otherwise we'll stick with Gittip.com. Sound good? Scroll up to see discussion to date. Some milestones:

This is the last call for votes. I will update this comment with votes collected on GitHub, Twitter, IRC, and email. Voting is open until the activity dies down.

+15 / -5 = 75% in favor

+1

pfraze
hansent
bruceadams
joeyespo
jeromegn

jezdez
brandon-rhodes
kennethreitz
moliware
mattupstate

psineur
ptone
mjallday
yano
fijal

issackelly

+0

steveklabnik
evenality
cz
bradmontgomery
cmbeelby (twitter)

canweriotnow (twitter)

-0

dmdj03
rmacy
mstum
cosmin (twitter)

-1

strand
ironfroggy
andyweissman
mitechie
whitmo (twitter)


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whit537/www.gittip.com/issues/138#issuecomment-7408743

@rmacy
rmacy commented Jul 31, 2012

-1 fundhub

Sent from my iPad

On Jul 31, 2012, at 2:27 PM, italiano40reply@reply.github.com wrote:

+1 for fundhub


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whit537/www.gittip.com/issues/138#issuecomment-7408861

@chmullig

+0 for fundhub

@hansent
hansent commented Jul 31, 2012

-1 for fundhub (right now...I don't think changing the name/brand just as it's getting traction is a good idea!! )
(+1 for funhub a little further down the road (maybe once a certain m,ilestone is reached), or redirecting to gittip for now)

@evenality

+1 for fundhub with some reservations. It is a better name than gittip. But I think there might still be a better choice out there. Also, just adding to the noise but it would be nice to put on "to do later" list to pursue acquisition of the .com .

@evenality

@hansent does have a good point. What if ...gittip is kept for the time being to get a solid foundation in place (billing, tax/accounting implications, payouts, etc) and then when ready to rebrand to fundhub(for all types of users) use that as the push to MARKET MARKET MARKET.

@ironfroggy

Move me to -0 for "fundhub". I don't dislike it as much as I first
did, but it doesn't strike me as a worthwhile enough change as
OpenGrants to be worth the trouble. Frankly, "gittip" isn't too
specific, because the people who don't use "git" dont' recognize that
in the name and just think its a play on "get tips" by itself.

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 3:55 PM, evenality
reply@reply.github.com
wrote:

@hansent does have a good point. What if ...gittip is kept for the time being to get a solid foundation in place (billing, tax/accounting implications, payouts, etc) and then when ready to rebrand to fundhub(for all types of users) use that as the push to MARKET MARKET MARKET.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whit537/www.gittip.com/issues/138#issuecomment-7409612

Read my blog! I depend on your acceptance of my opinion! I am interesting!
http://techblog.ironfroggy.com/
Follow me if you're into that sort of thing: http://www.twitter.com/ironfroggy

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Jul 31, 2012

This is a big deal, and it's only been eight hours since this round of discussion began. I feel like I need to sleep on it, which means that voting will be open through the night. Also means folks in Australia have a chance to weigh in. ;-)

@whitmo
whitmo commented Jul 31, 2012

http://barry.warsaw.us/software/laws.html

5th law. "All names are stupid until you become rich and famous with it."

Upon thought and watching the conversation (fully guilty of
contributing to the bikeshed earlier), I think the marketing value of
changing the name would be negated by the fact that a fair amount of
publicity has imprinted the web under the name gittip.

Name seems to be working fine from what I can tell. And the more
something works on the internet, the less reason there is to change
it.

wrt to growing beyond a technical audience, basically it come down to this::

  • you are geeky and know why it's called gittip and use it for whatever. Yay!
  • you are not geeky and have no idea what it means and use it for whatever. Yay!

I mean what the fuck is a flickr? what does delicious have to do with
links? What does a river in south american inhabited by warrior
princessess have to do with books and virtual servers?

Gittip already deals with gits (difficult people who probably deserve
money but don't get it because they are gits) and tips (giving people
the money they deserve even though they are not being paid it).

In this sense gittip is way more meaningful than most service names out there.

There are bad names and good reason to change names. I don't think
this project has hit either of those points yet. I do think Gittip
rocks and the name is part of it's however many weeks old heritage.
Consider git a philosophical approach rather than a technology, and
it's pretty easy to explain if you feel an explanation is required.

Anyway, that's my pinch of salt. I vote for sea foam green.

-w

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Chad Whitacre
reply@reply.github.com
wrote:

This is a big deal, and it's only been eight hours since this round of discussion began. I feel like I need to sleep on it, which means that voting will be open through the night. Also means folks in Australia have a chance to weigh in. ;-)


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whit537/www.gittip.com/issues/138#issuecomment-7411620

<=>
david "whit" morriss

"If you don't know where you are,
you don't know anything at all"

Dr. Edgar Spencer, Ph.D., 1995

@tito
tito commented Aug 1, 2012

+1 for fundhub

@thiloplanz

I say keep the branding the same, provide it as a infrastructure service and let other build other services for other communities on top of it. People know gittip, unless there is some need to start over, I don't see a point to changing it.

This !

-1 for rebranding. Let's focus on Github (and maybe other open-source project hosting sites), and provide the best (i.e. most tailored) service to this community. Let a network of related (and somewhat interoperable) services develop for other communities.

@bruceadams
Contributor

I'm changing my vote.

-1 for fundhub

Let's stick with gittip.

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Aug 1, 2012

65.4% - Proposal Does Not Pass

Phew! Wow. People, what a whirlwind, for me at least. 😳

I want to thank everyone who brainstormed names and bought domains and offered domains and offered to work with Twitter and weighed in and reminded us of various perspectives and in general participated in this thread. In the end maybe it was a bikeshed, but I'm not even sure of that because what I think we can see clearly here is that after two months there's a significant community of people interested in the fundamental idea regardless of what the name is.

As stated, I'm going to close this ticket and stick with the name Gittip.com. Let's take all of the great energy that came out on this thread and transfer it into forward progress on other fronts. Personally my priorities are:

Give yourselves a hand for some unusually fun and community-building bikeshedding. 👏

Now let's get back to building and growing Gittip!

See you on another thread! 🚀

@whit537 whit537 closed this Aug 1, 2012
@jezdez
jezdez commented Aug 1, 2012

Oh, hm.

@hansent
hansent commented Aug 1, 2012

In the end maybe it was a bikeshed, but I'm not even sure of that because what I think we can see clearly here
is that after two months there's a significant community of people interested in the fundamental idea
regardless of what the name is.

I don't think it was just a bikeshed discussion. Yes, they name ultimately, as a string of characters, is not that important, but I think this was more about the identity / fundamental idea behind gittip.com, what it is, it stands for, and what it's vision is. With that perspective, and seeing how many people contributed and are just as excited about this; I think the energy was well spent and shows that we are on to something that can really make the world better :)

@strand
Contributor
strand commented Aug 1, 2012

If we revisit this discussion in the future, I hope we can have a data-driven discussion. I asked my friend Lauren how she might go about finding the right name to brand an organization with, and she directed me to the article How to Hack a Dominating Domain Name for Your Website, which documents the process she was a part of for finding the right name for PlaceFull.

UPDATE:

The very relevant portion of that article is:

  1. Clickthrough Rate Test

I took the top 10 contenders from 1-4 and created an Adwords campaign with 10 individual ads. The keywords related to our market. Each ad was identical except for the company name in the title and display URL. The ad led to a generic “coming soon/sign up” page. For $100 we generated over 100,000 impressions and measured the CTR for each ad, trying to keep all other variables equal.

Surprisingly, the CTR test resulted in a clear winner: the original name we paid the agency to develop. This cinched it.

@domenkozar

HI guys, I'm wondering who has fundhub account on github? I would be really happy to have it :)

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Dec 19, 2012

Sorry @iElectric, that was me. I just added you as an owner. Feel free to take me off as an owner.

@domenkozar

Thanks!

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Chad Whitacre notifications@github.comwrote:

Sorry @iElectric https://github.com/iElectric, that was me. I just
added you as an owner. Feel free to take me off as an owner.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/whit537/www.gittip.com/issues/138#issuecomment-11535929.

@whit537
Member
whit537 commented Dec 19, 2012

We'll reopen the name discussion when either GitHub or Oprah complains.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4943242

@abnor
abnor commented Feb 26, 2013

I propose the name getfund; getfunded; getfunds

@chmullig

-1, it sounds like a kickstarter knockoff to me.

@ceboudreaux
Contributor

SendTip.com and SendTips.com are taken, but not developed.

These would change the focus from receiving tips to giving tips.

@domenkozar

BTW, fundhub.org is free now :)

@patcon
Contributor
patcon commented Oct 23, 2013

I know this subject is closed for now, but I'd suggest we consider how gittip could franchise it's infra at some point. For example, HiveWire operates on a similar premise with offering branded Kickstarter clones to organizations, like the Centre for Social Innovation's Catalyst crowdfunding service.

Certain groups are always going to need different messages to appeal to their user base. Perhaps its best to allow that to develop organically by facilitating branded mini-gittips. After all, I get the impression that gittip wants to be results-driven (ie the more people using the platform, the better), so we don't have the normal concerns about brand dilution, right?

Disclaimer: Skimmed this issue :P

@whitmo
whitmo commented Oct 24, 2013

+1 to subgittips

-w

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Patrick Connolly
notifications@github.comwrote:

I know this is done for now, but might make sense consider how gittip
might want to franchise it's infra at some point. For example, HiveWirehttp://www.hivewire.ca/operates on a similar premise with offering branded Kickstarter clones to
organizations like the Centre for Social Innovation's Catalyst
crowdfunding service http://www.csicatalyst.org/.

Certain groups are always going to need different messages to appeal to
their user base. Perhaps its best to allow that to develop organically by
facilitating branded mini-gittips. After all, I get the impression that
gittip wants to be results-driven (ie the more people using the platform,
the better), so we don't have the normal concerns about brand dilution,
right?

Disclaimer: Skimmed this issue :P


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/gittip/www.gittip.com/issues/138#issuecomment-26942498
.

<=>
david "whit" morriss

"If you don't know where you are,
you don't know anything at all"

Dr. Edgar Spencer, Ph.D., 1995

@patcon
Contributor
patcon commented Feb 14, 2014

FYI, if anyone else is partial to .do domains: make sure you search here:
http://nic.do/whois-hin.php3

(They have terrible seo, but it's the official. Deceptive third-party whois providers sometimes put client holds on domains you search for.)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment