[PREV - NOTABILITY_PARADOX] [TOP]
February 08, 2008
There's a common practice of
re-branding a back-end, using
the same software (and some of Related issue:
the same content) but presenting
the world a slightly different If you put up a "wiki"
face (a different header, a site should you use the
different domain name). "mediawiki" package
popularized by wikipedia?
This eliminates any
chance of forming a If you do, you'll
real sense of there have a reasonably
being a "site" full-featured site
there, i.e. some that a lot of people
sort of virtual know how to use
place with a sense without thinking very
of identity or hard.
character.
But myself, I often find
There's nothing there it disconcerting to be
for a sane person to looking at a site that
"build a relationship really seems like
with". wikipedia, but actually
isn't.
People who think
about "brand Many a crime has
loyalty" know been committed
nothing about in the name of
real loyalty. "look and feel",
but maybe it's
not an issue
that can be
ignored, either.
(If I used
the slashcode
to put up a
site, I would
change the
defaults --
probably to one
of the "light"
modes with
fewer bells and
whistles -- so
that it
wouldn't look
"just like
slashdot".)
--------
[NEXT - THE_TOY_WEB]