Re: [Snowdrift-discuss] Clearer slogan?

[Stephen Michel]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Michael Siepmann 
 wrote:

On 09/20/2016 08:40 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote:

On 09/20/2016 01:04 AM, mray wrote:

On 20.09.2016 02:25, David Thomas wrote:

What about dropping "fund"?  "Crowdmatching for public goods"

What about dropping "for"?

"Crowdmatching for public goods"
"Crowdmatching public goods"

You could say we ultimately crowdmatch for everybody, not for public
goods. Omitting "for" also makes Crowdfunding more of verb than a 
noun,

which is a good thing; more active and less static.

Michael rightly notes that "fund" clarifies what we mean without
depending on new words. Mike rightly notes that it implies some 
sort of
funding. I think when we introduce a new word we also need to let 
it do

some lifting, otherwise we shouldn't introduce it. Redundancy in a
slogan is bad. Short is good.

I find "crowdmatching" as a noun is a little easier to parse when it 
has

no context (i.e. isn't in a clear sentence). Also "crowdmatching for
public goods" works if you parse it as a verb or a noun, whereas
"crowdmatching public goods" makes anyone who starts parsing as a 
noun

do the mental work of shifting it to a verb.

The main reason I'm hesitant about (but not totally opposed to)
"crowdmatching public goods" is that the matching isn't matching of
public goods to one another, but it could read that way. It's patrons
who match each other.

If we were to do without a preposition, we could use:

"public goods crowdmatching"

To me, that's a nice effect but feels more dense and jargony. Of all 
the
options proposed "Crowdmatching for public goods" feels like the 
least

mental work to read and parse. The preposition helps me chunk it into
two clauses. It's a noun (or maybe a verb) with a preposition clause.
That's easier to process than parsing one jargony, heavy verb clause.




"Crowdmatching for public goods" works for me.  I'm persuaded by this 
recent discussion that it's probably OK to omit "to fund" and I like 
this less wordy version.


The main (only?) job of the slogan are to peak the interest of someone 
who does not already know what we are, preferably by succinctly 
communicating the essence of what we do. Therefore, I don't think 
anyone on this list can use their intuition to judge whether 
"crowdmatching" (or "public goods") does that job effectively. Of 
course "crowdmatching" has the right connotations in the context of 
Snowdrift!


On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Aaron Wolf  
wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Denver Gingerich  
wrote:

Overall I like that slogan.


There is one point I haven't seen come up in discussion (apologies 
if I missed it) but should be highlighted. I don't have a strong 
personal opinion on how important this point is, but because of 
whose point it is and the projects Snowdrift.coop aims to support, 
it should at least be mentioned:



https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#DigitalGoods


Now the slogan doesn't say "digital goods", but it does use "goods" 
in a way that to me felt slightly confusing initially (and would 
probably be more confusing to most people, since they spend less 
time thinking about software than the majority of us).


I don't know if there are good alternatives, though. "Public works" 
isn't an option since it has its own meaning ( 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_works ) and "public works of 
authorship" feels a bit long to me.


Anyway, I just wanted to highlight this. To me, the current slogan 
shouldn't be rejected solely on the basis of this, but it at least 
warrants a review by people more connected to the project than I.


Thanks for the thoughts, Denver! To address the concern: Yes, the
metaphor of "goods" inherently causes problems in terms of thinking
about non-rivalrous works, but actually "public goods" is the precise,
accepted term in economics for non-rivalrous, non-exclusive works. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good

So, it's not just a sorta-good description, it's *the* correct term 
for

precisely what we're focusing on.


Continuing the line of reasoning above: let's take a hypothetical 
situation where "public goods" is doing a less effective job at peaking 
people's interest by communicating the general idea than another option 
would be, despite being the technically precise term. (I suspect this 
is the case, but don't trust my intuition on this, either). Is being 
technically correct worth the cost, or should we consider other options?



There are three parts to the slogan: Crowdmatching, public goods, and 
(optional) filler words that tie them together. Mix and match:


[crowdmatching/crowdmatched]

[to/for] [fund/funds/funding]

[public/digital/unrestricted/FLO/post-scarcity] [goods/works/economy]


I am not sure how to turn it into a good slogan, but I like the idea of 
not talking about goods specifically but talking about the 
post-scarcity economy more generally. That's a 

Re: [Snowdrift-discuss] Clearer slogan?

[Denver Gingerich]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 07:40:31AM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> Of all the
> options proposed "Crowdmatching for public goods" feels like the least
> mental work to read and parse.

Overall I like that slogan.

There is one point I haven't seen come up in discussion (apologies if I missed 
it) but should be highlighted.  I don't have a strong personal opinion on how 
important this point is, but because of whose point it is and the projects 
Snowdrift.coop aims to support, it should at least be mentioned:

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#DigitalGoods

Now the slogan doesn't say "digital goods", but it does use "goods" in a way 
that to me felt slightly confusing initially (and would probably be more 
confusing to most people, since they spend less time thinking about software 
than the majority of us).

I don't know if there are good alternatives, though.  "Public works" isn't an 
option since it has its own meaning ( 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_works ) and "public works of authorship" 
feels a bit long to me.

Anyway, I just wanted to highlight this.  To me, the current slogan shouldn't 
be rejected solely on the basis of this, but it at least warrants a review by 
people more connected to the project than I.

Denver
http://ossguy.com/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
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=K4V+
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Snowdrift-discuss] Clearer slogan?

[Michael Siepmann]

 

On 09/20/2016 08:40 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 09/20/2016 01:04 AM, mray wrote:
>> On 20.09.2016 02:25, David Thomas wrote:
>>> What about dropping "fund"?  "Crowdmatching for public goods"
>> What about dropping "for"?
>>
>> "Crowdmatching for public goods"
>> "Crowdmatching public goods"
>>
>> You could say we ultimately crowdmatch for everybody, not for public
>> goods. Omitting "for" also makes Crowdfunding more of verb than a noun,
>> which is a good thing; more active and less static.
>>
>> Michael rightly notes that "fund" clarifies what we mean without
>> depending on new words. Mike rightly notes that it implies some sort of
>> funding. I think when we introduce a new word we also need to let it do
>> some lifting, otherwise we shouldn't introduce it. Redundancy in a
>> slogan is bad. Short is good.
>>
> I find "crowdmatching" as a noun is a little easier to parse when it has
> no context (i.e. isn't in a clear sentence). Also "crowdmatching for
> public goods" works if you parse it as a verb or a noun, whereas
> "crowdmatching public goods" makes anyone who starts parsing as a noun
> do the mental work of shifting it to a verb.
>
> The main reason I'm hesitant about (but not totally opposed to)
> "crowdmatching public goods" is that the matching isn't matching of
> public goods to one another, but it could read that way. It's patrons
> who match each other.
>
> If we were to do without a preposition, we could use:
>
> "public goods crowdmatching"
>
> To me, that's a nice effect but feels more dense and jargony. Of all the
> options proposed "Crowdmatching for public goods" feels like the least
> mental work to read and parse. The preposition helps me chunk it into
> two clauses. It's a noun (or maybe a verb) with a preposition clause.
> That's easier to process than parsing one jargony, heavy verb clause.
>


"Crowdmatching for public goods" works for me.  I'm persuaded by this recent 
discussion that it's probably OK to omit "to fund" and I like this less wordy 
version.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Snowdrift-discuss] Clearer slogan?

[Aaron Wolf]

On 09/20/2016 01:04 AM, mray wrote:
> On 20.09.2016 02:25, David Thomas wrote:
>> What about dropping "fund"?  "Crowdmatching for public goods"
> 
> What about dropping "for"?
> 
> "Crowdmatching for public goods"
> "Crowdmatching public goods"
> 
> You could say we ultimately crowdmatch for everybody, not for public
> goods. Omitting "for" also makes Crowdfunding more of verb than a noun,
> which is a good thing; more active and less static.
> 
> Michael rightly notes that "fund" clarifies what we mean without
> depending on new words. Mike rightly notes that it implies some sort of
> funding. I think when we introduce a new word we also need to let it do
> some lifting, otherwise we shouldn't introduce it. Redundancy in a
> slogan is bad. Short is good.
> 

I find "crowdmatching" as a noun is a little easier to parse when it has
no context (i.e. isn't in a clear sentence). Also "crowdmatching for
public goods" works if you parse it as a verb or a noun, whereas
"crowdmatching public goods" makes anyone who starts parsing as a noun
do the mental work of shifting it to a verb.

The main reason I'm hesitant about (but not totally opposed to)
"crowdmatching public goods" is that the matching isn't matching of
public goods to one another, but it could read that way. It's patrons
who match each other.

If we were to do without a preposition, we could use:

"public goods crowdmatching"

To me, that's a nice effect but feels more dense and jargony. Of all the
options proposed "Crowdmatching for public goods" feels like the least
mental work to read and parse. The preposition helps me chunk it into
two clauses. It's a noun (or maybe a verb) with a preposition clause.
That's easier to process than parsing one jargony, heavy verb clause.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Snowdrift-discuss] Clearer slogan?

[mray]

On 20.09.2016 10:04, mray wrote:
> On 20.09.2016 02:25, David Thomas wrote:
>> What about dropping "fund"?  "Crowdmatching for public goods"
> 
> What about dropping "for"?
> 
> "Crowdmatching for public goods"
> "Crowdmatching public goods"
> 
> You could say we ultimately crowdmatch for everybody, not for public
> goods. Omitting "for" also makes Crowdfunding more of verb than a noun,
> which is a good thing; more active and less static.
> 
> Michael rightly notes that "fund" clarifies what we mean without
> depending on new words. Mike rightly notes that it implies some sort of
> funding.

Ooops, I meant to say "Mike rightly notes that it (CROWDMATCHING)
implies some sort of funding"

> I think when we introduce a new word we also need to let it do
> some lifting, otherwise we shouldn't introduce it. Redundancy in a
> slogan is bad. Short is good.
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Snowdrift-discuss] Clearer slogan?

[mray]

On 20.09.2016 02:25, David Thomas wrote:
> What about dropping "fund"?  "Crowdmatching for public goods"

What about dropping "for"?

"Crowdmatching for public goods"
"Crowdmatching public goods"

You could say we ultimately crowdmatch for everybody, not for public
goods. Omitting "for" also makes Crowdfunding more of verb than a noun,
which is a good thing; more active and less static.

Michael rightly notes that "fund" clarifies what we mean without
depending on new words. Mike rightly notes that it implies some sort of
funding. I think when we introduce a new word we also need to let it do
some lifting, otherwise we shouldn't introduce it. Redundancy in a
slogan is bad. Short is good.





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Snowdrift-discuss] Clearer slogan?

[Aaron Wolf]

On 09/19/2016 08:41 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>> So, I'd accept "crowdmatching for public goods"
> 
> I really like "crowdmatching for public goods". I suspect that if I read that 
> without context, I'd take funding as implied, and be surprised if the thing 
> with that slogan didn't involve funding.
> 
>> although I *slightly*
>> worry that wording could be inferred to mean that you could have
>> crowdmatching for other things. The message I wish to send is "[funding]
>> public goods through crowdmatching" where [funding] could be other
>> assistance if we expanded.
> 
> I don't think any amount of words will prevent others from using the term 
> crowdmatching for exclusive goods. I wish nobody would use the term 
> crowdfunding to describe anything other than funding public goods. "Match" is 
> good because it conveys very simply how the mechanism is different, not 
> because it is a yet-unspoiled term. "Crowdmatching for public goods" very 
> nicely communicates what Snowdrift.coop will soon do, I hope.
> 
> Mike
> 

Okay, Mike convinced me. I think we should embrace "Crowdmatching for
public goods"




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Snowdrift-discuss] Clearer slogan?

[Mike Linksvayer]

> So, I'd accept "crowdmatching for public goods"

I really like "crowdmatching for public goods". I suspect that if I read that 
without context, I'd take funding as implied, and be surprised if the thing 
with that slogan didn't involve funding.

> although I *slightly*
> worry that wording could be inferred to mean that you could have
> crowdmatching for other things. The message I wish to send is "[funding]
> public goods through crowdmatching" where [funding] could be other
> assistance if we expanded.

I don't think any amount of words will prevent others from using the term 
crowdmatching for exclusive goods. I wish nobody would use the term 
crowdfunding to describe anything other than funding public goods. "Match" is 
good because it conveys very simply how the mechanism is different, not because 
it is a yet-unspoiled term. "Crowdmatching for public goods" very nicely 
communicates what Snowdrift.coop will soon do, I hope.

Mike

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Snowdrift-discuss] Clearer slogan?

[David Thomas]

What about dropping "fund"?  "Crowdmatching for public goods"

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Aaron Wolf  wrote:
> On 09/19/2016 04:37 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>> On 09/19/2016 01:57 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>> "Free the Commons" is a nice, short, relevant slogan. It's a call-to-action.
>>>
>>> But freeing in what sense? What commons? What are "the commons"? And
>>> technically, "commons" are rivalrous shared resources, not actually the
>>> public goods which are technically what we're working with.
>>>
>>> I just was chatting with Robert and ended up saying "I don't think we'll
>>> come up with much better, but the idea we want to express is something
>>> like 'Crowdmatching to fund public goods'"
>>>
>>> Well, what do you think?
>>>
>>> ** Crowdmatching to fund public goods **
>>>
>>> It's longer and wordier than "free the commons" but is more accurate. It
>>> gets right away into our use of 'crowdmatching' and clarifies that it's
>>> for fundraising, and uses "public goods" correctly. I'd think a reader
>>> would immediately say "what's crowdmatching?" and "what are public
>>> goods?" at which point those are indeed *the* two questions we want
>>> people to ask and that we want to answer concisely in order to introduce
>>> Snowdrift.coop.
>>
>> I strongly agree.  I while ago I suggested "Catalyzing creation of
>> public goods" among other ideas for a new tagline.  "Catalyzing
>> creation..." was definitely too vague, but the term "crowdmatching"
>> didn't occur to me until a few months later.  I think this new
>> combination of "crowdmatching", "fund", and "public goods" is excellent
>> and should be a big help in quickly giving people a basic understanding
>> of what Snowdrift.coop is about.
>>
>>
>
> Some alternatives of the same content:
>
> Crowdmatching to fund public goods
> Crowdmatch funding of public goods
> Crowdmatched funding of public goods
> Crowdmatch funding for public goods
> Crowdmatched funding for public goods
> Crowdmatching funding of public goods
> Crowdmatching funding for public goods
> Crowdmatching funds for public goods
> Public goods funding through crowdmatching
> Funding public goods through crowdmatching
> Crowdmatching funds public goods
>
> Incidentally, the only shorter one than my initial suggestion is a
> stranger grammar to parse because it's a complete sentence instead of
> just a verb clause or a noun clause. I think a clause is better than a
> sentence. So, it looks like the first suggestion may be best anyway.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Snowdrift-discuss] Clearer slogan?

[Aaron Wolf]

On 09/19/2016 04:37 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> On 09/19/2016 01:57 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> "Free the Commons" is a nice, short, relevant slogan. It's a call-to-action.
>>
>> But freeing in what sense? What commons? What are "the commons"? And
>> technically, "commons" are rivalrous shared resources, not actually the
>> public goods which are technically what we're working with.
>>
>> I just was chatting with Robert and ended up saying "I don't think we'll
>> come up with much better, but the idea we want to express is something
>> like 'Crowdmatching to fund public goods'"
>>
>> Well, what do you think?
>>
>> ** Crowdmatching to fund public goods **
>>
>> It's longer and wordier than "free the commons" but is more accurate. It
>> gets right away into our use of 'crowdmatching' and clarifies that it's
>> for fundraising, and uses "public goods" correctly. I'd think a reader
>> would immediately say "what's crowdmatching?" and "what are public
>> goods?" at which point those are indeed *the* two questions we want
>> people to ask and that we want to answer concisely in order to introduce
>> Snowdrift.coop.
> 
> I strongly agree.  I while ago I suggested "Catalyzing creation of
> public goods" among other ideas for a new tagline.  "Catalyzing
> creation..." was definitely too vague, but the term "crowdmatching"
> didn't occur to me until a few months later.  I think this new
> combination of "crowdmatching", "fund", and "public goods" is excellent
> and should be a big help in quickly giving people a basic understanding
> of what Snowdrift.coop is about.
> 
> 

Some alternatives of the same content:

Crowdmatching to fund public goods
Crowdmatch funding of public goods
Crowdmatched funding of public goods
Crowdmatch funding for public goods
Crowdmatched funding for public goods
Crowdmatching funding of public goods
Crowdmatching funding for public goods
Crowdmatching funds for public goods
Public goods funding through crowdmatching
Funding public goods through crowdmatching
Crowdmatching funds public goods

Incidentally, the only shorter one than my initial suggestion is a
stranger grammar to parse because it's a complete sentence instead of
just a verb clause or a noun clause. I think a clause is better than a
sentence. So, it looks like the first suggestion may be best anyway.






signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[Snowdrift-discuss] Clearer slogan?

[Aaron Wolf]

"Free the Commons" is a nice, short, relevant slogan. It's a call-to-action.

But freeing in what sense? What commons? What are "the commons"? And
technically, "commons" are rivalrous shared resources, not actually the
public goods which are technically what we're working with.

I just was chatting with Robert and ended up saying "I don't think we'll
come up with much better, but the idea we want to express is something
like 'Crowdmatching to fund public goods'"

Well, what do you think?

** Crowdmatching to fund public goods **

It's longer and wordier than "free the commons" but is more accurate. It
gets right away into our use of 'crowdmatching' and clarifies that it's
for fundraising, and uses "public goods" correctly. I'd think a reader
would immediately say "what's crowdmatching?" and "what are public
goods?" at which point those are indeed *the* two questions we want
people to ask and that we want to answer concisely in order to introduce
Snowdrift.coop.


-- 
Aaron Wolf
co-founder, Snowdrift.coop



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss