Does it have any meaning behind it?
How is it supposed to be pronounced (“codid-act” or “codi-dact” or?)?
6 Likes
I’d pronounce it Co-Didact (as in “Cough-Didact”). That’s because the Co- is one part (Co=together, could be short for “Community”) and the -didact is another part (didact=teaching).
If I recall correctly, the story behind it was, that some user wrote that they are an autodidact. That lead @rodolphito to suggesting it. In a majority vote we decided to use it as our name.
It doesn’t have any other meaning AFAIK.
1 Like
It was taken as an idea from @rodolphito by me and I kinda modified it. See here on Discord. I really liked it as a name and thought that it’s perfect.
I pronounce it as ko-D-a-dict.
2 Likes
I pronounce it Co-didact but with a long “o” – like “collaborate”, not like “cough”.
10 Likes
@luap42 is right, co for together and didact for learning. I submitted a bunch of *didact names through the google form: https://discordapp.com/channels/634104110131445811/637690766898233358/637713061230280704 (you can see the last one is codidact. I checked that the .com was available for all of my submissions)
@weegee I’m not sure what modification you refer to, but your initial support for that specific *didact name convinced me to get behind just that one *didact variant. I liked all of my submissions equally and was hoping one would stick.
I pronounce it exactly like @cellio describes.
@Script47 this is not the site name, anyways. Its the project name. We have yet to vote for a site name, and I will nominate Codidact for when we get to that stage. We are nowhere near there yet, though.
2 Likes
Actually it’s the name of the software we’re developing. And I’m of the opinion that the software and the site should have different names, as is done in all cases I know of (MediaWiki vs. Wikipedia, Slashcode vs. Slashdot, Rehash vs. SoylentNews). After all, the software may be used by others as well, and then the distinction between our site and an arbitrary site using our software is important.
3 Likes
As someone coming in from the outside, the name is rather off-putting. It tells you absolutely nothing about the thing it is naming, and is therefore useless other than an arbitrary handle.
<soapbox>
I really dislike this sort of cutesy naming. Unfortunately it comes up a lot, especially it seems, when software developers are allowed to name things.
Names serve two purposes: To be a short handle to the thing being named, and to give a quick first-pass idea what the thing being named is. Using a cutesy name doesn’t address the second purpose. Even worse, it is a slap in the face to outsiders. It says:
We are so important that everyone else should just know what it means. Conventions of reasonable communication are for everyone else. Ha, ha, you’re another dweeb that had to look up what this is, LoL.
</soapbox>
Unfortunately we saw this occasionally in the naming of SE sites. Many were very straight forward, like “Photography”, “Physics”, and “Electrical Engineering”. Even if you don’t know anything about photography, physics, or electrical engineering, you right away know the basics of the site, and therefore whether it might be relevant to you.
Unfortunately, there was also “Ask different”, “Mi Yodea” (can’t remember spelling), and others. I still don’t know what “Ask different” is about. My attitude when seeing that is usually screw these *&^%#s. I found out by accident that “Mi Yodea” is about Judaism. Why couldn’t they just say so!? Perhaps all jews know what that means, but public names aren’t just for the “in” crowd. Outsiders need to know enough about a site to know whether it’s relevant to them. With a cutesy name, they have to do more work to determine that. (I’m not trying to pick on that particular site, it’s just an example I could remember off the top of my head while typing this. There are a number of offenders).
Hopefully sub-sites here will have names that gives some idea what the site is about to ordinary people that aren’t particularly versed in the topic.
2 Likes
As mentioned earlier in this thread, Codidact is the name of the software; the site name has not yet been decided. And as software, it certainly won’t have any sub-sites.
Anyway, it is hard to find good names that are not yet taken. Try it. Think of a good name, and search for it. You’ll very likely find that it has already been used, and someone already holds the trademark rights, the web domain, or both.
Also note that names are handles. If you didn’t know that Android was a phone operating system, would you have guessed it? What about iOS? What tells you that Amazon is a web shop? Or Netflix is a streaming service? Or going more old-school, how would you guess that Chrysler is a car producer? Or that Boeing makes airplanes?
10 Likes
Codidact being the name of just the software is good. That leaves open the possibility of a good name for the site itself.
Yes, lots of real world names are arbitrary. We get used to the well-known ones, and learn nothing about the rest from the name. That doesn’t make such names a good idea when deliberately creating a new one, though.
There is also a difference between a totally arbitrary name, and one that gives the impression it’s trying to say something but isn’t. Chrysler is just a personal name, so people generally understand the name isn’t trying to tell you anything.
I remember a store that used to be called Tweeter. It sold HiFi gear. OK. Then they apparently changed it to “Cookin” one day. I remember walking in looking for a particular kitchen gadget, and being rather surprised and then annoyed. It didn’t help that the arrogant sales guy was trying to back-handedly shame me for not knowing.
The name of the overall site is probably not so important. People will get used to it. After all, they got used to Stack Exchange. It’s more important that all the sub-sites have good names, though. There will be people browsing the main site to see what sub-sites they might be interested in.
5 Likes
FWIW, “Netflix” is a self-descriptive name.
3 Likes
I wouldn’t expect more.
're you sure it’s just software developers coming up with those simple and short names? I would say it is the opposite.
3: to convey a more subjective feel by means of association and how it sounds. (like Bouba and Kiki). The emotion is much more important than the first-pass direct (literal) meaning. The strongest brand/product-names in the world (here the most valuable) do not do purpose 2 (and if they do, then not so clearly or obvious).
That is a slap.
codidact
I liked it when I first heard it. I actually thought of a combination of code and didact.
8 Likes
As someone whose never heard of the term “didact” until just now I don’t like the name. Is it possible to get suggestions from someone whose experienced in marketing? I feel like naming a product is different from naming a variable.
3 Likes
The important thing to remember is that this “product” is something the average user will not know or care about. In fact, the only people who will know or care about it are the developers (some of whom don’t like it (me) but don’t really care that much (also me)) and any future communities that will hopefully find a thriving active instance of Codidact with a different name and decide to set up their own instance with their own different name. So it doesn’t really matter that much.
4 Likes
Do you just not like the name or do you not like the name specifically because you are a person who has never heard of the term ‘didactical’?
Don’t worry about making the name some sensible term. The literal meaning of a brand name is not that important. You can name your computer product after a piece of fruit or a very large number and people will love it… the literal meaning doesn’t matter.
5 Likes
I liked the name immediately because it means ‘cooperative learning’. If ‘didact’ is not a commonly understood word, then perhaps it ought to be changed for a clearer synonym, but I do rather like the idea that the site being created will be a place for cooperative learning.
6 Likes
My bad, thought it was going to be the name of the main site
I just want to say that I really like the name.
2 Likes
Only with a lot of marketing. Otherwise, people won’t have a clue whether you’re selling soap, coffee mugs, or barn paint, and will just pass on by. We can’t afford the kind of marketing that gets people to recognize an arbitrary name.
The name is your one chance to very roughly explain what something is. If you don’t, then for a lot of people you don’t get a second chance.
Here is a real-life example: Some years ago, I noticed a TV show called The Sopranos. I ignored it because I wasn’t interesting in opera singers. No, really. Years later I realized it apparently was about a Mafia-style crime family. I never did see a single episode.
3 Likes
There might be many more people that behave like you, but should we really cater to just those who do not watch sopranos because they take names too literally? That is not at all standard human behavior and not something that one should aim for with naming a brand or doing any other marketing.
It’ll be very obvious when you shower with paint, drink soap, or put coffee grounds against the walls. You do not need a name to tell you the content of a product.
Among those products it is mostly ‘Nespresso’ that relates strongly to the content. It is an exception. The most popular paint is often not sold with a brandname that refers to paint and neither is soap being sold with a name that refers to soap.
Brand names, allow you to express whatever extra you want. This space is too valuable to be used to state the obvious.
3 Likes
Another consideration is searchability. If you only use common words for your name, people will have a hard time specifically searching for the site.
3 Likes