[JesseJamesGarrett] We must plan for this name to reach many, many more people than your typical open-source project or XML-based data standard. This project is the vehicle for syndication technology to make the leap to a broad, non-technical, non-power-user audience.
For this reason, the name must be consumer-friendly. We cannot assume that our product is compelling enough to overcome a name that does not resonate with the consumer market.
The name should be semantically related to the ideas inherent in this technology. The name must provide a simple hook for the complex idea of syndication. The name is the consumer's gateway to the set of concepts they must learn in order to appreciate, adopt, and ultimately use the technology.
Returns only two hits on Google not related to this project
No conflicting trademarks
Incorporates the concept of a "feed", the central element distributed, managed, and archived through this technology
Friendly to a consumer audience: easy to spell, easy to pronounce, easy to understand
Makes the document element -- "feed" -- make a bit more sense.
http://www.feedcast.com reserved for not-echo
http://www.feedcast.org reserved for not-echo
http://www.feedcast.net reserved for not-echo
Any cool useful taglines
30 second elevator pitches
Can be used as both a noun and a verb, though "feed" will probably be the preferred noun form
The verb "feedcast" provides som userful derivations: feedcasting, feedcaster, etc.
display sample icons here
[TravisMoretti] , ,
, , ,
[TomasJogin] Might seem irrelevant or improper to someone who's (for example) looking for an API to update a CMS over http, but has no intention or thought of making a "feed".
[JesseJamesGarrett] The name must, first and foremost, appeal to a broad consumer audience with no knowledge or understanding of technical matters ("API? CMS? http?"). Technical audiences will accommodate a consumer-oriented name; the converse is far less likely.
[TomasJogin] I'm just saying that by sticking "feed" to the name, the format/api might seem to be the wrong option for those who are not producing "feeds". Pretty much precisely like calling it SomethingBlog; bad idea, because while Blogging is part of what it's useful for, sticking "Blog" to the name might make it seem to be the wrong option for those who are not using it for blogging. If this is all balloney, why not just as well name it BlogCast?
[JesseJamesGarrett] Once again, if you have a name for the element managed through this technology that you prefer over "feed", please share it. But you're facing an uphill battle -- the "feed" concept is embedded very deeply in this technology, and doing away with it will cause a great deal of confusion and meet considerable resistance.
[AsbjornUlsberg, RefactorOk] <irony>XML is a huge part of this format, also in legacy perspective. Let's call the new format XMLFeed!</irony>
[AsbjornUlsberg, RefactorOk] AOL, Tomas. Very well put.
[TomasJogin] "FeedCast" suggest the format is used to.. well.. cast feeds. I'll say this only once more; adding "feed" to the name increases the probability to exclude people who are not interested in making or handling feeds. FeedCast has the same negative properties as BlogCast has, it excludes anyone not into making feeds, or blogs. If you don't understand that, fine. I'm done with this.
[TortoiseTrickster] Yes, but adding "splunge" to the name increases the probability to exclude people who are not interesting in making or handling splunge. Where splunge = anything. (Actually, I'd imagine the -casting concept would be more controversial.)
[JesseJamesGarrett] The "feedcasting" aspect of the technology is the only part the vast majority of users will ever be exposed to -- and again, it is this broad end-user group that the name must ultimately resonate with. If the "feed" concept presents a stumbling block for a much smaller, more technical audience, that's a problem with the concept, not the name of the project. They'll have to be introduced to the "feed" concept sooner or later. I vote sooner.
[JesseJamesGarrett] Be sure to voice your support by voting at NameFinalVote.
[NickChalko] Feedcast sounds like failed push technology from the 90's.
[JesseJamesGarrett] The ability of the name to communicate the core concept of a complex technology to a broad consumer audience is the most important consideration -- far more important than any distant associations it may have for a much smaller group of industry insiders.
[AsbjornUlsberg, RefactorOk] I disagree. Very much, actually. The name of this techonolgy can reflect what the technology does, but it doesn't have to. To be precise; I think it shouldn't. Echo was a great name because it meant something to those familiar with the technology, and those who never will be. We should find a name that rings in ones ear. A name that people find interesting and want to find out more about. A name that people may find amusing. A name that awakes feelings. A name that is noticed. Feedcast is ridiculously boring, imho.
[JesseJamesGarrett] It's a complex technology. It will take some time for consumers to understand what it does. The name must be the starting point for that understanding.
[BryantDurrell] Feedcast sounds like Pointcast. Pointcast is not known to a small group of industry insiders. It was touted as the next big thing for a couple of years.
[JesseJamesGarrett] People in the target audience for this technology who remember Pointcast are far, far outnumbered by those who never heard of it. We can argue about the level of consumer awareness of the Pointcast brand if you like, but it has no relevance to the issue of communicating the nature and purpose of this technology to a broad, non-technical audience.
[NickChalko] Google count for Pointcast is 73,600
[JesseJamesGarrett] By this logic, I'm the second-most-famous Jesse in the world. Again, my point about educating consumers about the technology stands.
[DavidJacobs] Again, sorry to come so late to the discussion. I think the name "FeedCast" is too generic sounding. We all know that it does make sense, but I think a "broad consumer audience" will turn off to it. And I also agree with BryantDurrell, many people still remember Pointcast, even if it's just in the fringes of their memory.
[AsbjornUlsberg, RefactorOk] I don't like Feedcast. It gives me a bad feeling. It's too explicit and at the same time too generic. Please, let's explore more names before we settle on anything -- especially Feedcast.