[Foundation-l] Renaming "Flagged Protections"

[William Pietri]

On 05/23/2010 06:37 PM, David Levy wrote:
> And again, the main problem is ambiguity.  "Double Check" can easily
> be interpreted to mean that two separate post-submission checks are
> occurring.  It also is a chess term (and could be mistaken for a a
> reference to that concept).
>    

I think insiders will adjust to any name we choose, as some of our 
existing names attest. So I think as long as the name isn't hideous or 
actively misleading, then my main criterion is how it comes across to 
novices. For them, I'd suspect most will take "double check" as it's 
used colloquially, but if some do get the notion that it's checked twice 
by others rather than once, I see little harm done. Personally, I think 
that's the direction that the system should take in the long term: 
there's no reason to stop multiple people from opining on an edit, and 
there's substantial potential benefit.


> What is your opinion of the proposed name "Revision Review"?
>    

I confess that I've mainly avoided having an opinion on this topic. Not 
that it isn't a worthy thing to consider; good names are incredibly 
important. It's just they're also a lot of work, and much of my 
attention is focused elsewhere. I suspect I'll be hesitantly fine with 
whatever name ends up getting picked. Fine because there are several 
good candidates and plenty of smart, skilled people involved. Hesitant 
because my preferred way to measure names is by user-testing them to see 
how names drive pre-use perception and in-use behavior. That's 
impractical here, so we really won't know how well our chosen name works 
until we see reactions to media stories and actual use.

William