Do we want to use the same terminology as gc.com? [closed]

swampgecko · Post by **swampgecko** » 09 January 05 11:57 pm

Thoughts please gentlemen.

I would prefer to get away from a lot of the same terminology as used by the other site. But some of the stuff is going to stay no matter what we do.

A cache will always be a cache, there will be no getting away from that.

Reviewer? I would prefer the term Assessor, as we will be assessing the caches for listing on the new site.

Any others?

I believe We have to try for an aussie flavour without going overboard or cutesie..

embi · Post by **embi** » 10 January 05 6:48 am

As long as we dont get too caught up in the "politics" of I think this way you think this way which is a big reason for starting au.

I really have no issues with what I'm called. I have been called many things lately and it doesn't really change what or how I do the job.

And as long as we dont confuse newbies and the elderly

with too many different things I think anything is fine.

riblit · Post by **riblit** » 10 January 05 2:25 pm

I don't really care - no matter what you want to make it, we will be called 'reviewers' by the gp.

ideology · Post by **ideology** » 10 January 05 2:30 pm

we think just go with people what know
we used the term reviewers in the announcement

swampgecko · Post by **swampgecko** » 10 January 05 2:48 pm

I know when I am beat;)

embi · Post by **embi** » 10 January 05 4:09 pm

swampgecko wrote:I know when I am beat;)

Are the bruises showing yet though?