Group Name (was Re: Bay Area Weblogger Group: What's Next?)
- Glad you thought the ideas were of use, although I don't think you
entirely got my first point.
Yes, peapod is a flop-com. That is a valid point. However, what I
wanted to get away from, especially for those who come at this from a
journal or diary perspective, is using the term weblog. I don't think
it is inclusive enough. It is a term that will turn some LiveJournal
users off, assuming they even know what a weblog is in the first
place, which, of course, most people don't.
Fortunately, I just thought of a better name that I would favor over
P-Pod any day of the week...
How about "Online Publishing Enthusiasts Network" or OPEN. It not
only spreads the net wide, it also has a very friendly acronym that
really, to me, conveys exactly what this group is all about.
--- In webloggerusergroup@y..., "Diane" <dereese@m...> wrote:
> --- In webloggerusergroup@y..., markkraft@y... wrote:
> > Many comments:
> And many with which I agree, btw...
> > 1> Group name. It should be as vendor-neutral and as inclusive as
> > reasonably possible.
> Excellent idea.
> > After thinking about names, I have a favorite to suggest that I
> > think would be catchy, inclusive, and allow us to go from general
> > to specific rather than predefining ourselves too specifically
> > wishing it were easier to backtrack later.
> I'm with you so far...
> > I think we should call our user groups Peapods (P-POD), an
> > for Personal Publishers Offline Discussion.
> Eeeeek! No, please. Peapod was an online grocery delivery service
> which competed with Webvan (before its demise) in many areas and is
> now in abbreviated operation on the east coast between CT and VA.
> While I was one of the few people who tried single-handedly to keep
> Webvan in business, I can't imagine naming our group after a
> delivery service (even inadvertently).
> For the reasons Mark mentioned above, I rather liked the Weblog
> Interest Group suggestion made at the meeting. We can have wigs
> rather than pods, eh?
> > 2> Meeting location. I don't think moving the meeting location
> > around the bay is a good idea if you want to encourage
> Your points are all valid on this one. Here's one perspective:
> I got a lot of energy out of this week's IRL meeting and plan to
> continue to attend, I have two school-aged kids at home and a
> who travels a lot. There ain't no way in creation I can finish my
> workday, pick up the kids, feed them, start them on homework, and
> then get on a train to SF on a weeknight with the ability to return
> home in time to get them in bed before 11 (!). It just ain't never
> gonna happen: I can't EVER go to SF on a weeknight, for ANYthing.
> Now, situationally-single parents with school-aged kids might not
> the audience this meeting is targeting (see Mark's comment on
> Nielsen), in which case, I defer, and will only come on alternate
> months, since I recognize that others have different yet just as
> valid constraints on their time and travel. The alternate-months
> thing just isn't the same as being a regular member, and is likely
> serve to fragment the group.
> > I would suggest
> > a place near the train and near the San Mateo Bridge.(Hayward
> > Hillsdale, etc.)
> If this suggestion works for people with needs different from mine,
> I'm all in favor of it. If not, maybe instead of SIGs based on
> interest, we need to admit that a single Bay Area group might not
> Thanks for the thoughts, Mark, they're good ones. (I also agree
> your meeting structure points, but why bother with *too* much "me
> Diane Reese
- On another forum, Julian Bond posted a link to an experiment by Cory
Doctorow (http://www.craphound.com/fourblogs/). That gave me an idea. With
less than five minutes of work, I threw together a sample (but very much
live) page that displays four weblogs from their RSS feeds using canned
blogger as columnist.