Hacker News Reader

Comment by macrael | Hacker News Reader

Seems a bit dangerous to be using the automatic third level domain of github in this way. This is not the first time I've thought a project was endorsed by github when it was not.

View on HN

I spent a couple of minutes drafting and redrafting a disagree reply but actually I agree with you in regards to the title of this submission. The use of githubs subdomain is fine because everyone one does that for their little project (even big projects like twitter bootstrap). The title on the other hand implies a github endorsed project which its actually not, I can understand where you are coming from.

wow... I too thought this was Github endorsed. I recall reading about the referenced blog post on HN some time ago. The comments suggested they contact Github. And then a link appeared to giving.github.com. I guess I just assumed it was something Github had green-lighted. I guess it is not. :/

Thought so too, for a moment - but on second thought, GH set the UX bar for their add-on projects quite a bit higher (as may be observed e.g. here http://hubot.github.com/).

You can tell just by looking at the website. No designer at Github would have approved this.

By including ".github.com" in the name, the project is, to me, trying to parade itself as being part of github or affiliated in some way. They're using github's name as an appeal to authority. It's a neat project, but needs a better name.

You must be confused by every blog on Github then.

Yeah, not particularly. Most of the ones I've seen (again, casual Github user) are not trying to use .github.com in the name of their site (regardless of address). Here, the project is named, "giving.github.com," implying Github affiliation. http://square.github.com/cubism is clearly branded as Square, not square.github.com. There's a big difference.

That was a warning light for me, yet I still thought it was coming from github. Well, it seems it does not come from github. Bad behavior.

Edit: Now, that I think of it, copy was a second red light, yet I still thought it was coming from github. It only shows how good a perception github as a company has.

This is the first time I've thought a site hosted on *.github.com was a github project, but I did think that for a second. I'm guessing because of <h1>giving.github.com</h1>. Had it been just <h1>Giving</h1>, suspect wouldn't have thought that for even an instant, despite the domain. I'll chalk this up to poor perception on my part.

Separately, interesting that (IIUC) this project allows donors and donees to choose whether they're willing to grant/accept MIT/AGPL. If project is successful will be interesting to see how often each choice gets made. But I don't think it is explained all that clearly on ... giving.github.com :)

Yikes! I thought that as well. Due to my screen resolution, the "not affiliated nor endorsed by the company github in any way" disclaimer was the only part of the page that wasn't visible without scrolling.

Not only that, it's in a small light colour text on a white background. It almost seems intentional to swing it this way.

Wow I thought this too. :(

Reply on news.ycombinator.com