h a l f b a k e r yResident parking only.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
| |
zippyanna and sirrobin: see badoingdoing's link. |
|
| |
That link must be wrong. It should point to Self-Referential Idea Names. |
|
| |
At the risk of explaining the self-explanatory: a lot of ideas are listed by names that do absolutely nothing to describe the idea, or are so vague as to be meaningless. They tend to be "cute" ideas that are more marketing than description. |
|
| |
...or not even ideas for inventions at all. |
|
| |
Huh. I thought this idea was going to be about something else. |
|
| |
What's wrong with marketing isn't that it misleads, but that it's pointless (I'd add counterproductive) for this forum, where there's no actual product being sold. I think a halfbakery idea description should be much more similar to a patent application than a television commercial; it should tell what the invention does (and to some degree how it works), not just why it's necessary (which most marketspeak ideas are not). |
|
| |
And no, you're not a clever parodist because you wrote ad copy for a particularly silly invention. Bassmaster and Sledge-o-matic have been around for several decades now. |
|
| |
There are two problems, aren't there: idea names that describe the thing they mean to change, ie "Teeth" or "Car," and idea names that use cutesy product names like "Sallywax." For the first, fergawdsake append some hint about the actual innovation, ie "Carbide Teeth" or "Rotating Car." The second kind has a legitimate use in parody (was Sallywax a sly meta-comment on the Halfbakery itself?) but IMHO should be avoided for real-world ideas. (Well, if any of these things *can* be called real-world ideas.) You can always put ad-copy in the body of the idea if you think it will help people visualize the thing. Argh, too many words shut up dog ed. |
|
| |
That seems like more of a Shelbyville kind of idea... |
|
| |
Some people may need to refer to the idea submission
guidelines.
Anyways, striving for ultimate semantic clarity often would
lead to unweildy, verbose names that, ultimately, mislead,
as words cannot perfectly signify their referents.
And yes, "Self-Referential Idea Names" constitutes a more
semantically correct name for this posting.
Sheesh |
|
| |
No, because then the name would have to be 'This is the name of the idea', referring to itself. |
|
| |
What do you mean by "this," "is" and "the"? |
|
| |
an idea can be self-referential without saying "I, the idea, am self-referential." so yea: "self-explanatory idea names" is self-referencing, but no need for reclassifying... Also, "self-explanatory idea names" is mighty slick. Mighty. |
|
| |
May I rain on the parade and cry "advocacy"? |
|
| |
I just spent 5 minutes clicking that link. |
|
| |
I posted a similar idea in Computer:Game:All in one called [See Link]. It's only redeeming quality was the category choice, which I thought quite witty. |
|
| |
Jutta MFD'd me in about five minutes, and I and the idea made a hasty exit. It was fun while it lasted :-) |
|
| |
I've been stuck here for weeks! Can someone please post an exit link before my sta[Stack overflow exception at 0x0128f280.] |
|
| |
Bun for [gnormal], bun for [badoingdoing], bun, bun, bun, bun, bun, bun, bun, bun, bun, bun, bun, bun, bun, bun, bun. |
|
| |
Is [gnormal] the anti-[vernon]? |
|
| |
I clicked badoingdoing by mistake. Was wondering what that meant. |
|
| |