SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
We've finally reached the end. The name will be....
...SoylentNews.org!
I know, it's a bit anti-climactic, but we've gone over the results and our current name won by a significant margin. We'll follow up with a post detailing the voting results in a few days.
Edit: The results data are available in responses to this comment.
For what it's worth, there were a lot of us that would have like to see the name change. The staff even had a chance to override this decision, but instead we decided to support the community's choice.
I'd like to thank everyone who spent a lot of time (and in some cases money) suggesting domains, voting, and bearing with us through this long complex process. It turned into a huge, non-trivial task to pull off, and I appreciate your patience and understanding. We listened to your criticisms of the process as well and we've learned a lot about how we can significantly improve this process for the future.
Okay, now cue all the "I told you that SoylentNews would win!1!!1!!" comments...
(Score: 1) by khakipuce on Monday June 02 2014, @08:51AM
There is this thing called DNS which will allow multiple names to point to the same web server. We are all reasonably intelligent and can handle the fact that a site could have two names. I know the marketeers will be throwing their iPhones across the room at this suggestion but hey, why not break some more moulds
I wanted a name change and I thought there were some very good alternatives offered, is it possible that your method of selection (9 as favourite, rather than 1) could have skewed the result, i.e. people intended to put soylent as a bottom of the list default, ended up giving it top score? Although perhaps not if soylent won by a wide margin.
One final nit pick and sorry if it's been pointed out before but in this case it's cue not queue...
(Score: 2) by mrcoolbp on Tuesday June 03 2014, @03:37AM
We've considered pointing the other domains that we already control here, but I'm not sure it would do much at this point. And someone did already point out the "cue" mistake, it was mine, I was tired. Sorry. = )
(Score:1^½, Radical)