John Carter comments on Cognitive Daily:
How about keep it really simple…
Blogging on Peer Reviewed Research.
Means you have change the R^3 to R^2 but that’s all Good.
I think he’s got a point. It’s a simpler acronym, and it will work equally well as the catchphrase on the icons and for the name of the aggregation web site. For now, I’ve registered the URL BPR2.org. On the negative side, “B-P-R-squared” doesn’t roll of the tongue quite as easily as “B-P-R-cubed.”
What do you think?
I like it! John’s right – why make it more complicated? I’ve always thought BPR3 was a bit redundant. The way I write, blogging is synonymous with reporting.
By the way, when I first saw this on my feed reader, I read it as “B-P-R two”, not squared. The two (or three) needs to be superscript to be read as squared (or cubed).
The two (or three) needs to be superscript to be read as squared (or cubed).
Oh, it will probably be, eventually. I’m just a little ambivalent about whether to call it BPR^3 or BPR3. But everyone who’s designed a logo has superscripted it.
Hmmmm I think the idea of changing BPR3 to BPR2 makes sense. I like either one, but which ever one is chosen, should be stuck to and not changed from this point out. The more a title or name is changed, the more confused people become.
I’m a little inclined to BPR2 as well. The number matches the number of capital R’s in the logo.
I like two rather than squared – it’s a bit of a pun.
Webs comment is the most important: we have to decide and stick with whatever we decide.
I like two rather than squared – it’s a bit of a pun.
That’s what bothers me a bit about it. Also, it seems a little like “BPR–The Sequel.” I feel as if I should really be visiting BPR, not this spinoff.
BPR3 feels more like it’s its own thing.
That said, I don’t see why the icon can’t still read “Blogging on Peer-Reviewed Research.”
For some odd reason I like the number “3″ more than “2″, but the new acronym is far easier to say than what BPR3 stood for. I like it! It would make the icon match a lot more cleanly to the website.
I’m of mixed opinion about the superscript thing. The superscript makes it seem more… mathy. A subscript would be… chemical? But leaving it just as a number, BPR2 or BPR3, seems like a reasonably standard thing these days, probably because of all the number in websites-that-are-also-company-names.
My vote is to let it remain two, not ’squared.’
I’ve preserved your web weblog.
I will immediately seize your rss as I can’t in finding your email subscription hyperlink or e-newsletter service. Do you have any? Kindly permit me know in order that I may subscribe. Thanks.
As I website owner I believe the content material here is really superb , appreciate it for your efforts.
I think that is one of the so much important information for me. And i am satisfied studying your article. But want to remark on some common issues, The site style is perfect, the articles is really excellent : D. Just right process, cheers
Thanks for the auspicious writeup. It in fact was once a enjoyment account it. Glance complicated to more introduced agreeable from you! However, how can we be in contact?
hello!,Is extremely good writing so a great deal! percentage we communicate more approximately your article on AOL?
