USERS: THREAT OR MENACE?

[ivorygates]

I'm looking for input on terminology here, because I'm running across more and more translation strings with the word "user" in them, and it's my understanding that Dreamwidth wants to avoid using that term. Now, frequently "user" can be replaced with "you", but just as frequently it can't, as in "Similar Users" or "No users are similar to [[user]]." (I could go on. And on.)

ETA: Judges' Ruling: "users" will be replaced with "accounts" throughout translation strings where "user" or "users" cannot reasonably and logically be replaced with "you".

What are we going to do in these situations? "Individual" is too cold-corporate; "People" is misleading (because sometimes the "USER" referenced in the translation string might also be a community or communities); "Persons" has the same problem as "People" (and is grammatically-hideous into the bargain).

I'm just about ready to replace "user" with "dude or dudes"....

Your thoughts?

Comments

[rainbow]

"Journal"?

[rainbow]

Oops, I just realised this isn't your personal journal. Sorry. *cue blushing*

I'm always chasing rainbows

[ivorygates]

No, not at all! Everybody is welcome to have an opinion on this AFAIK

rainbows are like that *g*

[rainbow]

Cool beans!

User: threat or menance 5 April 2009

[ivorygates]

But what if it's a community and not a private journal?

Re: User: threat or menance 5 April 2009

[rainbow]

It's still a community journal, isn't it? Or is it a community account instead? Or just a community?

Or you could always expand to "journal or community"....

"Similar Journals or Communities"
"No journals or communities are similar to [[user]]."

Re: I'm always chasing rainbows

[norabombay]

Just saying I LOVE the icon. The more If You Seek Amy the better.

Re: I'm always chasing rainbows

[rainbow]

Thank you, I love my Morgan's Tarot - it was one of the first I got, back in the early 80s. But I don't remember an Amy card in it, and nothing is coming up on google?

Help me, nora-wan kenobi?

Re: I'm always chasing rainbows

[norabombay]

AH! I googled. And um, that is an awesome awesome tarot.

It is also the chorus of the new Britney Spears song.

"Ha ha hee hee ha ha ho" is the chorus of "If You Seek Amy", the new Britney Spears single- check it here on you tube: If you seek Amy - warning, suburban dance orgy ahead.

I may have a one track mind for references to one Ms. B. Spears. Like the force, in a way :)

Re: I'm always chasing rainbows

[rainbow]

I'll have to check that out the next time I'm up late (low bandwidth until the middle of the night).

I have this sudden mental image of BS in a costume of duct tape (it binds the galaxy together, donchano?)...

Re: I'm always chasing rainbows

[norabombay]

Sadly, I think duct tape may be the only thing I _haven't_ seen her in. But it would be much with the awesome.

Binding all the galaxy together for a pop music dance off!

[norabombay]

"dudes, or dudettes"? In the best Bill & Ted voices you can muster.

Actually the entire thing being written in the voices of Bill & Ted would be awesome.

[brownbetty]

Well, if you're looking for something less antiseptic, there's "members"?

[pgwfolc.livejournal.com]

That was going to be my suggestion. But there are potential problems with that. Then again, if people want to be immature, that's their problem, or perhaps should be.

Maybe something thematically apt? "Dreamers," perhaps? Or is that not clear enough for actual usage?

Hard to find a term that encompasses both individual journals and comms. When you get down to it, "users" doesn't really work for that.

"Accounts"?

[brownbetty]

Members is a bit of a problem on a less juvenile level, too, since, well, membership in what?

Putting that hat on tim drake is a crime against god and nature.

[pgwfolc.livejournal.com]

Membership in Dreamwidth. What else?

Sorry the icon offends. I hope this one is easier on your eyes. You're actually the first person to specifically recognize Tim. Few even recognize that it's Robin.

It was created as a visualization of my alter ego of HatMan (I'll spare you the long explanation). It's been my face to the virtual world for a few years now. I'd have done something more original, but, well, I'm not much of an artist. Drawing the hat is about the limit of my capabilities.

I'm a bit curious, though, why it matters so much to you if you only care about "even numbered Robins." Actually, I'm curious about that term in general. Fan of Jason and Steph?

Anyway... Girl-Wonder? Cool. :) My interaction with the site is mostly limited to reading Planet Karen, but I like the idea of it and have recced the site to several friends.

I'll shut up now. Hopefully not too much later than you wanted/cared to have...

[brownbetty]

I'm sorry, that was exaggeration for rhetorical effect, it only offends me aesthetically, and not very at that. It's just such an un-tim-ish hat!

It occurs to me, though, that a good alternative to user is people/person. "If you have a problem with another person on dreamwidth..."

I mean, you'd have to specify, occasionally "person with a journal" or "person with an openid account" but really, I like the idea of referring to people as, you know. People.

[pgwfolc.livejournal.com]

Ah, gotcha. It's hard to read tone in text-only.

And... I suppose it is un-tim-ish, but it doesn't really feel un-robin-ish to me. I mean, Tim's whole point when he knocked on Bruce's door was that Batman needs a Robin to help him lighten up from time to time. And he's certainly not averse to clowning around...

As for people/person... it's mentioned in the original post. (Easy to forget/lose track of these things...) Turned down because the term should ideally refer to comms as well as individual journals. (Of course, you've also got individuals with multiple journals, journals which are fictional in nature, etc...)

I'm starting to think the best solution is just to invent a new word, define it somewhere convenient, and then hope it catches on. The situation does seem to call for something of a neologism...

[brownbetty]

Whoops, reading, can haz.

But if you're referring to both communities and personal journals, you're not really referring to users so much as accounts, right? I mean, a user might have several personal journals and "own" several communities, anyway. It seems to me like it might be a good idea to separate those concepts. One is a person, and the other is a table in a database on a server.

[pgwfolc.livejournal.com]

Agreed. Actually, that's more or less what I said in my first comment. I guess the icon distracted you. ;)

[brownbetty]

...I'll just leave and come in again, shall I?

[pgwfolc.livejournal.com]

lol, let's just call it even. Or something. Whatever.

I'm Paul. Well met. :)

[denise]

I don't like using something like 'dreamers', just because it can come off as too cutesy to a lot of people.

I think 'account' is probably the least problematic option -- as niqaeli points out, 'member' can be confused with Members of the LLC owning DW, namely me and mark.

[damned_colonial]

Or for members of a specific community.

[ame]

Personally I think "member" and "group of members" might be better terminology. :)

[niqaeli]

Member has other more pressing issues than immature readings as it implies -- well, okay, certainly one of the beauties of this services is that users *are* going to have a lot of input. But member implies a direct vote in decisions: as in, member of the Board; member of an organisation. And that's a dangerous thing to imply to people when it's not -- I don't believe, anyway -- an accurate portrayal of how their input will be taken in.

Account, perhaps? Modified appropriately where need be: a person's account, a community account?

[pgwfolc.livejournal.com]

Two more thoughts:

"Entity" (although I'm not sure about the tone of that one)

"JoC" (Journal or Community)

[forthwritten]

I quite like accounts - you're not talking so much about people but what they've made available, so feasibly there could be users very similar to myself but who use their journals in very different ways.

[damned_colonial]

Yeah, I like account too.

[mark]

Just commenting to suggest you try to keep the terminology to something that will mesh well when we have the ability to link accounts and have sub-accounts, alt-accounts, or whatever.

I think "account" probably works fine for that situation, but I just want to toss it into the pot.

[bohemianeditor]

Just wanted to note that, based on this post and other edited text I've come acrosss, I'm changing "users" to "account holders" in strings like The gender breakdown of our account holders:. (The accounts don't have gender, the people who hold the accounts do.)

I'm changing "users" to "account holders"

[ivorygates]

*nodnod* Yeah, I'm finding myself gravitating toward that fix as well, when circumstances warrant, because you're totally right. Thanks for noting it here.