SAFE Network is a terrible product name [Clickbaitish]

  1. Hey, girls dig ZIMA

  2. I thought ZIMA was dead

  3. :rofl:

2 Likes

Come on guys, you choose to critique (SAFE is an awesome name) by offering what alternative suggestions?? homer%20car%202

2 Likes

Does a literature critic rewrite the book?

1 Like

Let’s be fair though, this folk walked the walk and delivered. What, that’s another story, but he did try to do more than just destroy.

1 Like

Well, in literature at least, the form and style are a huge part of the value.

Cool. Who’s Nassim Nicholas Taleb and who are his critics here though? Anyone with prejudice should get pee pee slapped? That would be a lot of us all things considered.

Again, kudos to @solfeggio for speaking his mind. Even if he just helped people appreciate the SAFE Network moniker much more than before, which he probably did not intend to. No harm here though. Just ideas. Some good ones, some bad ones. Life.

2 Likes

Be careful here. T.S. Eliot, Jean-Paul Sartre, Edgar Allan Poe, John Updike - all literature critics. :wink:

We’re not talking about whether you’re doing something right or wrong. We are talking about allowing
constructive criticism. When you close yourself out to that you become too immersed in self.

not against constructive criticism … quite the contrary actually …

…but so far all i’ve seen was “oh this is bad … i do know something way better … but i won’t tell you”
So i would very much like to see what is on the table … but as long as that isn’t revealed i don’t consider this topic to be anywhere near constructive crisicism :wink:

7 Likes

As I said, it is not a requirement for sincere critics to provide alternatives.

but it’s part of constructive criticism imho :wink: if there is no suggestion involved it’s just destructive criticism (because it only sais something is bad … trying to depress the creator … not how it could be made better - you know? :wink: )

3 Likes

constructive criticism - dictionary.com

adjective
1.
helping to improve; promoting further development or advancement (opposed to destructive ):
constructive criticism.

A well-meaning critic really has no further obligation. Haven’t you ever had any fellow students critique a paper you’ve written? They’re not expected to rewrite it for you. The comments can be brutal, but the intention is what matters.

I have not seen this yet.

If you generically criticise then this is not constructive in any way.

Saying “it won’t work”, “It won’t attract people”, “its a *xyz* and that never works” are just general terms and really are just saying its a bad name.

To help to improve a name then you need to supply either Names or a process to follow to get to the name that would work.

This has not been done yet.

I would be happy if we can get away from name bashing and into the “helping to improve” stage, this topic is proving to be a trolling one till we get away from the 130 odd posts about how bad it is and get into the “this is the better name” or “process to create better name”

5 Likes

just saying “oh man … i don’t know … there’s something missing there … i don’t feel the vibes” really is not helping in any way … either you really work on improving … or you should better invest your time on something else … so many words written here could have easily formed a nice article about safe or a translation of some documents into some other language :wink:

1 Like

Just stimulating conversation about the deficiency of something should be considered “helping to improve”. It really is a moot point, though, as I’ve stated before, for all practical purposes it is too late to change the name(s) since articles by prominent sources have been written and hundreds or thousands of comments on various forums about SAFE Network and Maidsafe have caused the two names to be inextricably linked to the project and ingrained in people’s minds.

1 Like

And there was not even asking what others thought, just bashed the name. No asking others to help to find a new name. So far we have only been given the carrot on a stick that he will reveal the better. No substance yet and a promise is not improving.

No that is what trolls claim to be doing all the time. As I said above there has been no real attempt to engage the community in bettering the name, just trying to bash the name and get support for that bashing. Whether he is right in it being a bad name or not does not mean its helping to improve.

A promise that he will help to improve is NOT helping to improve but more trolling till its done. We have now had days and over 130 posts and he still has not given even one bit of evidence that he is either a “expert in marketing” or that he is even got a better idea.

The evidence is now speaking for itself and unless he stops trolling and comes up with some ideas to improve the name I will call him out to be trolling. Even if he is right or wrong its still trolling.

Does that suggest the SAFE name is already working? Maybe not as good as another but still better than changing to a (slightly) improved one?

3 Likes

Exactly. Better to keep the status quo than confuse a lot of people, even if a better name were to surface. My comments have all been centered around the need to consider different voices, not to just reflexively dismiss them because they offend the senses. Someone doesn’t need to be an expert to offer their constructive criticism, nor should they be required to provide alternatives. And, as has been pointed out in this thread, it will be up to the apps to provide a “catchy” name, which will be far more important than the name of the network it rides on.

I hopefully showed in my replies early on that that I disagree but considered his thoughts and the subject that he brought up

But when he claims himself to be one then one expects him to provide suggestions/criticisms accordingly and of a higher standard worthy of that claim. But to date he has critisied, not suggested improvements, and appealed to others to support him.

Not your typical person bringing up an issue they feel strongly but claimed to be an expert.

He associated (claimed to be) himself with being a marketer and that he knows his job (expert)


He has yet to do that (just negative criticism so far)


I think this is the crux of the naming issue. And to the credit of Solfeggio, he mentioned that this is where the energy of naming should be.

But considering the factors this is not your typical person bringing up a point of criticism but a person who self admittedly wants attention and only ever provides a carrot of providing creative criticism. And also encouraging those who support him. If you ignore the topic-information and look at the flow (non-topic), it is a good example of a troll at work. Now if he wants to disprove that label then I think he needs to stop trolling and provide improvements to both the topic and the topic at hand.

1 Like

Fair enough. Your comments were more an indictment of @Solfeggio. I understand now.

1 Like

I want to encourage @Solfeggio to provide some positive input to the topic, because you know a better name that (even at this stage) would help would be a good thing. But without the name bashing and troll-like behaviour.

2 Likes