New user registration
by matt - July 28th, 2008
We’ve been hearing feedback from the community and noticed in the logs that there are sometimes issues with new user registration. This has been fixed on our testing servers and we’ll be moving it live in the near future. If anyone’s had these problems, please check back to see when you’ll be good to go. Sometimes this error manifests itself by not allowing a new user to login and giving no error message (a double-whammy).
As always, thanks for being cool.
comments
our sites
recent comments
- nicolas Acosta: How can I change my password, I had my mac stolen and it had my password saved!!!!!! I would really appreciate any help as soon
- Brad: 5. The NameThis website is in dire need of a FAQ, and probably a forum as well. I have had a hell of
- Brad: 4. In regards to duplicates, I agree with others that this creates a bit of a problem. If the winners were solely determined
- Brad: 3. I've read a bit about the 'blind submissions' and I'm guessing that this is a feature that has subsequently been removed? Like
- Brad: 2. I think users should be able to make edits to their proposed name if necessary. One option could be to allow the user
going live now …
live
Thanks Guys !! xD
Now its working great, thanks!
I have one question, and i dont know where to ask so here it goes:
Is there anyway to keep a name this project running further than 48 hours?
@julian not at this time … we’ve debated it a bunch of times internally, but we’re not sure there’s enough need to make it as a new feature.
Fishissippi, Fishapaloosa, and Soireel? And two from Troy? Yet again! How do you expect to keep the rest of us around?!!! Is there the possibility of setting up a forum where we can discuss names?
Hello,
I am considering utilizing Kluster/name service but have a question: Can we simply submit three or four example names and tag lines to be voted and expanded upon vs. coming up with entirely new ones? We have the name down, but the tag line is where we would love to see crowd-sourcing input. Thx!
@donna I like fishissippi! Just because your personal tastes might run against the current (hah) of the community doesn’t mean the site is fundamentally broken. Troy suggested over 10% of the names for the project, it’s not implausible that he would win twice. I looked at the investors and amounts of investments in his ideas, and nothing looks fishy about them. I also looked to see if you had invested in any names. You didn’t. This comment strikes me like a wallflower making fun of the dancers. If you’re not going to participate in the community decision making, how can you criticize it’s decisions?
@ron you can use namethis to come up with taglines. I believe it’s one of the categories. My suggestion would be to post the name ideas in the description and then to post the taglines you’re already considering as “names” If the community likes ‘em best, you’ll get some validation. Otherwise, since name posting usually inspires further names, it’ll work well to get the namers started on your tagline.
@ Donna, I like Fishissippi!, too. I haven’t had time to get involved in any of the contests of late, but I check out some of the winners, and this one really stood out for me — it’s so enthusiastic, and says “place” and “what” so clearly! I do so wish the kluster folk would make big changes in name this (hint, hint, Matt), but every so often a real winner wins, and (IMHO) it did here.
I liked Fishissippi more than some of my own suggestions; that’s why invested in it. I thought Fishapalooza was a great suggestion, too. . . though I’m mad at myself for chumming the investment waters on Fishapolooza instead of Fishapalooza. Didn’t even _catch that there were the two variations on spellings in the contest.
darn… I missed the naming of the fishing event. Would have liked to suggest “FishIt!”…
I missed the submitted question and answer that directly related the event to the Mississippi, so I understand that one,now, though I’d have gone with something like Beat Your Feet or Mississippi Mudpie Festival had I noticed it. But I still consider Fishapaloosa lacking in originality and Soireel downright ridiculous. And I CAN’T invest. I have no watts! Nor any opportunities to get some except by prevailing on my friends. And are you really telling me that Troy’s investments don’t come from a lot of the same sources time and again?
@donna I’m saying that I looked at all the investments in Troy’s name for this competition, and there was no pattern at all that indicated things were being gamed. Not every suggested name received investments. Not every invested in name won. The investors were diverse and not the same for any given name with investment.
As for getting watts, prevailing upon your friends is a wonderful way to spread the fun that is namethis as well as acquiring watts.
Ah, but if you compare Troy’s investors for this competition versus other competitions……
Actually, Troy’s one of those people who come up with multiple name suggestions for each project, and not all of them win.
Anyway, it is a perfectly valid strategy to place bets on names just because it was suggested by someone with a good track record… which brings me to this question: should it matter who suggested that particular name? I think the names should be evaluated on their own merits, and people shouldn’t support a name just because their friend or a certain someone suggested it. Would it make more sense to hide the names of the suggester, at least until the results are out?
I also agree that we need a way to earn more watts. I’m rationing my watts, and I’m down to a couple of hundred only…
That is definately the downside of the investment thingy. People do not only judge the names by originality and quality but more and more by the person who suggested it. I agree that this is a valid investment strategy. But when you think of the purpose of namethis.com – which is giving cool and sh*t products good names – it should be made sure that this will not happen!
I recommend to hide the names of the suggesters until the product is named (and to filter the name descriptions for the user name of the suggesting person).
As I can not edit:
Replace “good names” with “the best names” in the third line.
@Martin and Wilson. Thank you.
This is partly why I refuse to recruit my friends. Part of the reason for it is to have a ready group of voters who are likely to support your suggestions whether they are good or not.
Part of what NameThis is selling the businesses that put their projects on the site is the opinions of subscribers on what is the BEST name. No one is going think “Oh, that web site has a Liza Lippincott (I hope that’s not a real subscriber) name. I’ll definitely go there!” So giving those clients a short list of “winning” names that have been supported on the basis of who suggested them is not a giving the clients what they pay for.
If someone’s name suggestions are that good, fit a certain group of people’s taste so well, those folks will support those names whether they know that person suggested them or not.
I support Martin’s suggestion that the names of the suggesters be hidden until the product is named.
Of course, even that could be subverted by folks discussing their proposed names in messages, though, but will they take the trouble to do that to gain $40? I’m not sure.
@Donna — Two fairly simple things that many namethisers believe would vastly improve outcomes — a two-tier system and blind submissions — have been suggested repeatedly, to no avail. There may be a very good klusterrationale, but they’re not talking.
I don’t think blind submissions are a good thing.
As far as I can see from the discussions from the KlusterTopGuns everything has been fair for quite some time with no underground investment rings.
Secondly, I like to know who made what submission so that I can encourage them on their profile if I like it, and make suggestions to them as well. Blind submissions would take a very large part of sociability out of namethis and Kluster.
@R. Ethan — I like the sociability aspect as well, but I believe objectivity is important in business pursuits. No matter how objective I try to be, WHO submits a name makes a difference in what I notice and how I vote. (Others on this blog have admitted the same. )Taking the submitter into consideration undercuts the point of the exercise, and the one thing will make namethis truly revolutionary: Coming up with the very best names for the client.
@Ethan,
I’d like to be able to comment on names and encourage and make suggestions, too, but shouldn’t it be possible to incorporate a system in which you could comment blind, with the submitter of any name being forwarded any comments and suggestions on the name. As it is, since I haven’t had any watts to invest (having put them toward an experiment), I’ve been messaging folks whose suggestions I think should have won.
I am about to invest all of my watts in one of my names just to see what happens…
@Ethan I did that experiment. At that time, there was a project that only had somewhat over 3000 watts invested and I had 1160, so I invested all mine in one of my names. The total investment for that project ended up something over 5000. The math said that each of the winning names could not have had more than about 30 more watts than mine, but I still didn’t win. The discussion of the results is below on another thread. Apparently, it matters who you are as well as what you invest. Me, I’m waiting to see what happens with the names I’ve already proposed and I’m probably out of here, though I’ll check back to see if things change. As of right now, in my opinion, there’s no doubt. The game is rigged. And I don’t play games I’ve no chance of winning.
@Ethan What project(s) have you proposed a name for? I’ve been searching each project page for “Ethan” and haven’t found you yet, and I’d like to send you a private message. I find it very interesting that you can’t, as far as I can see in a quick investigation, browse the people list for a particular name.
@donna I really don’t think it’s fair that you keep posting over and over again on the blog that the algorithm/game is rigged when clear evidence is shown to the contrary. I’ve tried to be responsive to your concerns. I’ve looked into issues that you’ve had. I’ve been open and honest about what’s going on. Without further issues on your side, besides you not liking the winning names or your names not winning, please stop posting things like, “the game is rigged.”
20 names per competition, that’s not fair, you know who you are…kluster guys do something, this is getting boring
i have an idea, dont let people know who submitted the names until the final results…
@Matt. Is it OK if I say that your algorithm is so seriously flawed that it might as well be rigged? That may be more accurate, and I do see the difference, if that helps.
I haven’t been posting over and over that it’s rigged. In this case, I posted to prevent someone from using all his watts to make an experiment I’ve already made, and I posted the results of that experiment, results that prove that it’s not purely overwhelming watts that allow the same persons to win over and over again. And I informed the person of what I had learned as a result of that experiment that might be of use to him.
You have not responded to my comment about folks receiving their support from the same sources over and over again, which makes gaming the site by mob easier. Nor have you explained why blind submissions (along with the possibility of blind comments on them) and a two tiered system, for which there have been several requests, do not serve the objective of the site of giving the client the BEST names. My objective in my blog postings has been to serve that objective.
@donna I did answer your question. If it wasn’t the same people voting for the names in one project, how could it be the same people voting for the names across multiple projects? Who would those same people be? Are you implying there’s a mob of people that only likes one of the suggesters names? And only games the system well enough to get second place? It doesn’t make sense. You assume there’s a mob/group rigging things, but there’s evidence to the contrary that you won’t believe.
As for the others ideas, some of them are under consideration. The problem is that there isn’t a clear consensus that any of the ideas are perfect. A lot of people like blind submissions, but there have been posts to the contrary. On top of which, if you believe there is a coordinated effort to game the system, blind submissions don’t seem to address that problem. Blind submissions wouldn’t stop someone from sending a message to their group telling them to vote for a particular name. Since that’s the primary problem they’re trying to solve, I’m not sure the benefit outweighs the negatives of hiding all community aspects of the site.
There have been lots of different two tiered systems suggested, both internally and externally, but we haven’t found one that is definitively better. On top of which, part of the appeal to the seeker of a name is a short window after which they’ll find an answer. Balancing that with two-tiers might be difficult. There’s also an issue of whether we can find community consensus for choosing the first tier if it’s so many names. Kluster isn’t ruling two-tiers out, we just haven’t heard a way to do it that we all agree is an improvement.
What I find remarkable about your continued insistence, despite clear evidence, that things are flawed or rigged is that you’re not even investing. So you aren’t happy with the selected winners but you’re not willing to participate in selecting them. It seems to me you’d have more influence over the results by participating on the site then participating on the blog.
@donna - sorry - My official Kluster name is Russell Smith - I should change it to R. Ethan Smith there as well. But I have not gotten that far yet.
Completely my fault.
@matt…I don’t think Donna has any watts left to invest.
Also, while I appreciate that there is no clear consensus on improvements, I would venture that sometimes smart people (ahem, like you guys) take a risk and either follow your gut OR listen to the advice of people you trust, both in the technoworld and here in your own little kingdom (there must be a few in the crowd here you’ve been impressed with). Or, perhaps you could run a dummy (not for actual winnings) contest to try out a new version of the platform (two-tiered submissions, for example, or blind submissions). I think this group would play.
Regarding blind submissions, I really don’t see how this change would decrease sociability. In fact, I think it would help. I’d go back on to see who the posters of my favorite names were. I know many of us would send props to our faves, especially now that there’s no inherent conflict of interest/competition left. And, most important, I think some new creative talents might emerge.
I’d also like to put in another word (please, please, please) for “Top 10, 15, 25″ listings. Knowing you were close (or off completely) would help in formulating better and better names. And it might take the sting out of it to know that one’s “cleverest” name at least got SOME votes. I am often perplexed when names I invest in don’t make it; knowing it was close might encourage me to invest more.
Okay, that’s probably enough from the middle-aged women brain trust.
I do not think that the system is getting gamed at the moment.
I totally agree on what Stacy said regarding the social aspects of the blind submissions. I just can not see where hiding the names of suggesters would be “hiding all community aspects of the site” as Matt stated. All comments and props on names could be given after 48 hours when the project is over.
@Stacy: I am not sure if a “Top 10, 15, 25″ would be that good. I mean it would not be right if suggesters would adapt their style of naming to the investment characteristics of the communities bigger part. (Then we would have even more of these poor results that are recently occuring amongst others.)
@Martin: I see your point, but I suspect naming style is already being adapted. I’ve noticed, for example, that names travel from contest to contest (a lot of “verdant”s) and prefixes/suffixes go through trends (for a while it was “ster,” then it was “i”). And has anyone noticed that long explanations seem to garner votes, too? I truly believe that some of the more innovative names might win if people believed they had a chance; right now I think a lot of voting is “safe” voting.
@Stacy I’ve noticed that names with long descriptions seem to do well, too, (What they garner in the way of votes is still unknown since winning does not necessarily correlate with watts gained.) And, you’re right, I have no watts to invest having done the experiment to determine that, but I can still suggest, message, and blog which is pretty participative. I can’t recommend this site to my friends until the algorithm works better.
I also support the idea of letting us know how our names have been doing, even if just by posting the “unlucky ones” in order from most watts to least.
@Matt I’ll try to accept that there is no gaming that you can detect going on, but there has to be some explanation for why such a large percentage of the winning names are submitted by the same people aside from their actually being the best names submitted. I think there would be a very clear consensus that often, they just plain aren’t, and I don’t think the fact that certain submitters submit so many names explains it either.
I have noticed that a large number of the people recommended for me to connect with seem not be participating or only participating by investing. Not that there’s anything wrong with that choice, and not that it has anything to do with the problems some of us see, but I’m wondering if anyone else has noticed that.,
I just wanted to add that my remarks do not apply to all repeat winners. Some of them really do come up with really good names over and over again.
It’s official! . . . at least one poacher has arrived. In project # 725 “community gaming website,” my suggestion for “oolii.com” was stolen by a Mr. Louis Fasulo of Seattle, WA, who registered it through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com) Domain Name: OOLII.COM on: 04-Aug-08. (indeed, before the contest even ended) . . . I sincerely doubt that the timing of this registration is coincidental.
I wouldn’t be so bothered but for the facts (1) the contest holder asked, specifically, that a .com domain name be available. (2) the winning name in that contest did was and is not available as a .com (3) that the domain poacher person did not even wait until the end of the contest to steal my idea.
Technically, I don’t care all that much, but I do hope karma gives the thief exactly what he deserves.
@shawnee - the evil part of me contemplate registering domain names as they are chosen for contests. But I realized that would be a pretty LOW thing to do - and thus never did it. Shame on the Ba***rd…
@Shawnee — Maybe it’s possible that Mr. Fasulo is the client, and HE liked your name best!? Not sure what any of the ethics here are, but that thought did occur to me, since the name is different and clever….
Hmm . . . Well, if that’s the case, Stacy, it doubly sucks to be me!
I do think I would mind a lot less if that were the case, though. Maybe team kluster could set up a “tip jar” or “honor system” or something for us in the event that people or the contest holders themselves particularly like our ideas or suggestions that don’t “graduate”. . .
LOL. I just assumed the clients wouldn’t necessarily use the graduate names. It would actually be totally cool to get an “after the fact” from the client, saying which the fave names were. Love the tip jar idea!
Just wondering aloud… Does the namethis website need to be open to everyone to view? We could always require people to log in first before they are allowed to see the suggested names. While this would not prevent people from stealing website names, at least it would keep non-members from visiting namethis to “steal” names…
Very good thoughts Wilson. I agree.
Both are very good suggestions.
Guests could just read the project descriptions but not the suggested names. That would atleast be a little obstacle to pass in order to steal domain names.
And, of course, it would be very interesting if we could get feedback from the clients side. Even if it is just to see that they chose a completely different name.
For what it’s worth and for whoever cares. I noticed that there were presently 10 finished projects on the home page, so I sat down and did the math on the winning names (not considering 1st, 2nd, and 3rd). One person had 43% of the winners. Two each had 10%. Nine others had 3%.
(I’m a former scientist and can’t seem to help approaching things quantitatively sometimes.)
meh.
It is what it is.
I have begun to accept it.
I might even try to enjoy it once again.
I will just keep trying.
I will just keep naming.
I will just keep investing.
@Donna,
Without data such as the actual amount of investments and the distribution of investments amongst the names, it is impossible to say with any degree ofncertainty that there is “funny business” going on with the namethis projects. For example, your results can be explained if there are some people who are just really good at coming up with good names, or if there are only a limited number of “big” investors (if the results are determined by a small group of people, then the possibility of “skewed” results for the project is higher). Or it really could be just plain dumb luck (remember: just because something has a very low chance of happening doesn’t mean that it can NEVER happen).
It would be a mistake to jump to conclusions without conclusive proof.
@Wilson,
I seriously doubt your first theory.
I could do the statistics math that would show how likely it is that one person would get that large a percentage of wins by pure chance. I think it would come out maybe slightly more likely than the chance that all the voting anomalies in the 2004 election fell in Bush’s favor by pure chance (less likely than the wrong person being identified by DNA), but I digress.
Actually, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with your second theory, that there are a very limited number of very influential “big” investors. I read somewhere on the blog that NameThis had put a limit on how much a single investor can invest in a single name suggestion. (I wonder if there’s a limit per project.) But watt numbers alone aren’t the story.
I’ve decided to opt out since I’m getting no benefit from participating with my name suggestions and can’t get any from investing, having nothing to invest. I will check in from time to time, though, to participate by comment and to see if things get better. Somehow, I doubt I’ll be missed.
Come on!! Shepherd wasn’t even spelled right!
@All.
I did another experiment with two nameless but highly watted collaborators. The question was whether a middling bit of support from a couple of highly watted folks could produce a win, or whether having a certain amount of watts gives you enough influence that your investments are pretty much guaranteed to produce more. For what it’s worth, you’ll either need more than two highly watted investors or more than 50 points from each of them, because less than that doesn’t work.
I would love to be able to comment on others suggestions to help them finetune them or just weigh in so that the community can respond. I think this would be of value in determining the Best suited names and tag lines for the clients.