Hacker News Reader

Comment by metafunctor | Hacker News Reader

Democracy can take many forms indeed. But let's think opportunistically, for a moment.

In general, I'm inclined to think that in a democracy, the people should have more direct influence to things “closer” to them (by some measure), and less for bigger, nationwide, issues, of which they presumably have less understanding. This is, in fact, how most democratic nations work in practice.

The case of Boaty McBoatface, though, is unusual in that it doesn't actually much matter what the name of a research vessel is. It's just a name. Names are almost always boring. Unless… if the name becomes so popular and widely known that the very name opens up completely new opportunities for raising funds and awareness. Which, I would have thought, was kind of the point of the competition to begin with.

So, why not reap the PR benefits of this name? Why would they start a contest but back out when they hit the jackpot? I do not understand.

View on HN

If spun right the PR benefits of calling the thing Boaty McBoatface are huge.

You could do merchandise, books, characters, You could have Boaty McBoatface sale up to the ice caps to look at why they are melting.

It's not like this is unusual we had a Childrens TV series here that was massively popular about talking trains and talking helicopters.

I think they squandered a massive opportunity because they don't understand how the internet works.

It is a difficult line to toe. Obviously if their primary objective is to raise awareness of the (continuing) existence of the boat, BMcBF is a winner, and there are numerous cash-in opportunities such as those you suggest. If done right it might not even look cynical!

If on the other hand giving it a silly name "dilutes their brand" (to use an HN favourite) then they're going to do the stuffy thing. Not entirely sure why folks would be surprised at a Conservative minister taking a conservative approach...

Really seems that SCIENCE does a lot better in the public eye at the moment when it goes populist rather than cloistered, but here we are...

> Really seems that SCIENCE does a lot better in the public eye at the moment when it goes populist rather than cloistered

Except vaccines. And chemtrails. And moon landings. And and and...

I'm a populist by nature but let's not get carried away here.

All of those viewpoints you alude to are extremely fringe movements and are in no way populist.

You would be surprised. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9991988/40000-ch...

These movements share a message: "the man is screwing us little people". That's a populist message, which it's why they're much more popular than their actual craziness would otherwise grant.

The point of the boat isn't to be a Budgie the Helicopter style cash machine, is it? It has a serious purpose.

Why does it have to appeal to 4 year olds, who have zero understanding of or interest in what it does? Why does it require an infantile name to appeal to kids who are old enough to be interested in what it does?

The only reason this is even any kind of issue is because of the way internet works, where all kinds of pointless immature stupidity is given far more time of day than it deserves, because newspaper sites have to fill themselves with something.

Edit: Oh dear. Looks like I hit a nerve with some people. :( ∗sad mcsadface∗

The parent wasn't simply talking about making it a "cash machine", they're talking about using it as a PR vehicle for science.

And you don't have to be a child to appreciate the name, just not quite as allergic to whimsy as you seem to be.

> You could do merchandise, books, characters

He was talking about free merchandise, books, characters then?

They also said:

> You could have Boaty McBoatface sale up to the ice caps to look at why they are melting.

An example of how it could be used to deliver important messages.

And merchandise can be part of the message anyway.

(I should however note that I just edited my comment to include the word "simply".)

AFAIK there's nothing to stop someone creating a character called Boaty McBoatface that teaches 4 year olds why the ice caps are melting, without having its internet joke name attached to a real life $300 million scientific research vessel.

Well yeah, but that's not the same.

And exactly what problem does attaching the name to a real boat cause? I think the objection to the name is far more childish than the name itself. "Oh no no no, we can't call it that. This is a serious boat, for serious grown ups."

If only Spitting Image was still around. This whole thing is like designed for a solid round of mockery.

Is it just $300 million scientific research vessels that should be given deliberately stupid names (that even the originator disowns), or everything?

What? I said objecting to the name is childish. That doesn't mean I think everything should have whimsical names, and I really don't know how you interpreted that from what I said?

Did I say you said everything should have whimsical names? I asked if that is what you thought. Can't you tell the difference?

So what's your presumably non-childish objection to other things being given "whimsical" names?

>So what's your presumably non-childish objection to other things being given "whimsical" names?

I don't object to that either?

My God, this is completely ridiculous, but I'll try one more time.

Do you or do you not believe everything should have a whimsical name?

To save time: If your answer to this is "No, I do not believe everything should have a whimsical name", then what is your non-childish objection to whimsical names in some cases?

That's a false dichotomy. I do not believe everything should have a whimsical name nor do I believe they shouldn't.

(Except in the sense that variety is preferable, but I don't think that's what you're getting at.)

Not supporting OP but their question is not at all a dichotomy. The question wasn't should everything have a whimsical name or should nothing have a whimsical name. The question was basically just should everything have a whimsical name. Sounds like your answer is no, because you're ok with things having whimsical names sometimes.

Yes that's how I read it, and it is a false dichotomy, because not thinking something should be the case is not the same as thinking it shouldn't be the case. They're both value judgements of which I make neither.

Are you by chance on the committee that is naming this boat?

If not, you'd be an excellent committee member. You'd be a total hit at committees.

When you allow the public to chose a name for a research vessel, it's inoffensive, popular and creates more media coverage (arguably the goal of having the vote) then no matter how whimsical you think the name is you should stick with it. If you don't want whimsy, don't ask the British public to name your ship.

No one forced them in to the situation.

FWIW I don't find the name stupid, one person's humour is another's stupidity I guess.

I agree that it's totally stupid to use online voting, that is just asking to be hijacked, and I almost believe that they should have to eat the result as a punishment. Almost.

Hopefully it's a lesson for them not to ask The Internet its opinion again.

Wow, it's extremely irritating to see this (parent) post downvoted by people who may not realize (till after downvoting) that what I replied to was edited - from denying what I said to admitting it, making my reply look redundant.

> allergic to whimsy

British public life is nothing but whimsy. Consider that "wheelie bin" is the actual normal name of a thing, not a cutesy nickname.

A little non-whimsy is frankly refreshing.

As opposed to "panties", "burglarize" and "bangs"?

There are words in all dialects that sound whimsical to outsiders, but internally they're so normalised that no one considers them whimsical at all.

Yeah, serious new Royal Navy boats need serious names, like its predecessors HMS Speedy, HMS Child's Play, HMS Happy Entrance, HMS Arrogant (later renamed HMS Insolent)...

Makes me wonder if any of these were part of the inspiration for Iain M. Banks ship names.

Very probably, as his father was an officer in the Royal Navy, and he grew up near the naval dockyards :)

> Why does it have to appeal to 4 year olds, who have zero understanding of or interest in what it does?

You realise that those 4 year olds grow up right? And that by possibly catching their attention and imagination at an early age it might even make them more interested in the area and maybe, gosh, make them want to become researchers and scientists when they grow up and tackle issues like climate change.

And the very people objecting to it now will be retired, dead or moved onto a more senior position and then care less about it.

> You realise that those 4 year olds grow up right?

No, I didn't realize that 4 year olds grow up. Thank you for clearing that up.

The most popular talking vehicle, in the US at least, is named Thomas.

This isn't a particularly convincing argument for a silly name. If kids will accept Thomas, surely they'll accept a more serious name than Boaty McBoatface.

I assumed it was Lightning McQueen.

Looks like it's pretty close:

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=thomas%20the%20tank%...

So, why not reap the PR benefits of this name? Why would they start a contest but back out when they hit the jackpot? I do not understand.

This is reminiscent of a contest on EEVBlog that Keysight just sponsored. Participants entered the contest by posting a video on Facebook describing what they would do with an oscilloscope. The person whose video garnered the most votes would win a new 20 GS/s oscilloscope with a bandwidth spec of 6 GHz and a price tag in the neighborhood of US $70,000.

Naturally, the winner turned out to be a kid who made a video about an electric water heater and got a bunch of her schoolmates to flood the voting page. The highest-ranked entry by someone with a legitimate need for a 6 GHz oscilloscope finished in a distant third place.

So Keysight did the only thing that could have avoided a giant online dumpster fire, and gave one of the scopes to each of the top three contestants. It was an expensive lesson in the failings of democracy (and in not using Facebook for anything important).

So yeah, they should just paint the name on the boat and get over it. Keysight salvaged their marketing effort by taking the high road, but you can bet they won't run this contest the same way in the future. They're lucky they didn't have to give away three dozen 6 GHz scopes to random high school kids.

Using Facebook to communicate is totally fine and great. Letting self-selectrd Facebook hordes make decisions is the mistake.

> It's just a name. Names are almost always boring.

Not everyone feels this way. Names can be important and in the arts are particularly relished/valued and interpreted, to the extent that noms-de-plume and other forms of pseudonym are popular.

A formalist account of names sees them as dumb labels, and in computing you can get away with that. But it's not whole story because it doesn't consider the emotional side.

Problem is, it's easier to develop an understanding of national issues than local or regional issues because national issues get pushed on us by media, while you have to actually seek out information about anything local. Everyone talks about national issues, that's social pressure to become knowledgable about them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com