Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: JenniferRM 19 October 2014 03:31:30AM *  6 points [-]

To work well, I think it needs a good name. In terms of long term social dynamics, creating a meta-brand that helps smaller brands seems essential. Like when people initially see the "tested by X" logo they won't know what it means.

Assuming the web app works as intended, and assuming any significant fraction the population just stop believing any of the classes of claims that might be tested this way and lack the logo, then the process should gain more and more credibility over the course of months and years. The transition from an unknown logo to a trusted logo will be tricky for the larger institutional hack to work, and the name itself might be key to the logic of acceptance at the beginning.

I ground through various options at the command line with $ whois $OPTION | grep "[A-Z].COM"... trying to find things that get the right idea and aren't already registered.

  • DoesItWork .com (taken)
  • justtestit .com (taken)
  • efficacy .com (taken)
  • forrealz .com (taken)
  • proveitforreal .com (available!)
  • simplytested .com (taken)
  • quickproofs .com (taken)
  • openproducttesting .com (available!)
  • opensourcetesting .com (taken)
  • tested .com (taken)
  • testedclaim .com (available!)
  • thirdpartytested .com (available!)
  • 3rdpartytested .com (available!)

Namespace is huge and finding a good name seems key. The names I looked for my be too boring or too long or too easy to misspell? Please comment in response to this comment, one name suggestion per comment, and then find the 3 best suggestions from other people (assuming that there are lots to choose from) and vote them up :-)

Edited to add: I'm seeing lots of votes and no suggestions. Also, ProveItForReal seems to be winning but I think that works better in a {{citation needed}} context (ie you say {{prove it for real}} to dubious claims) but it works less well for logos on products. Imagine a logo that is worked into product's packaging that says: "TestedClaim: X gives benefit Y in Z% of users"... that seems good in that context, but {{this needs to be a tested claim}} is awkward. Surely something better is possible than either of these?

Comment author: JenniferRM 20 October 2014 05:32:04AM 3 points [-]

simpleproofoftruth.com

Acronym: SPOT, sounds kind of neat with "SPOT test" or "SPOT tested".

It also works as a potential prod like citation needed... {{ simple proof of truth needed }}

One thing that slightly bothers me is that it relies on an older and less precise sense of the word "proof" that comes more from english common law than from mathematics, and the mathematical sense of the word "proof" is dear to my heart.

Comment author: JenniferRM 20 October 2014 01:46:56AM *  4 points [-]

One issue that seems more likely to be problematic when the web application is being created and launched than later on, is whether the questions are well designed. There's a whole area of expertise that goes into creating scales that are reliable, valid, and discriminative. One possibility is to construct them from scratch from first principles, and then make them publicly available, but another possibility is to find the best of what exists already that is open sourced.

For general biotics and meal squares it seems like some measure of "not having a happy tummy" is a relevant thing to measure. If soylent gets in on the process they might have a similar interest?

A little bit of googling turned up the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale. It has 15 items (which might be too many?) and it is interview based (so hard to fit into an automated system). The really nice thing was that I could find a PDF and it all looked pretty basic.

A 2006 paper by van Zanten tipped me off to the existence of:

The Glasgow Dyspepsia Severity Scale

The Leeds Dyspepsia Questionnaire (public domain, with a Mandarin version!)

The Severity of Dyspepsia Assessment

The Nepean Dyspepsia Index

I'm feeling like in this situation, I can safely say "I love standards, there are so many to choose from"! One of the things that turned up in my searches that seems like a really useful "meta find" is the Proqolid Clinital Outcomes Assessment database but it requires membership to use the internal search function and I need to pause to grab some dinner.

Comment author: _alexander 16 October 2014 12:13:58AM *  2 points [-]

Is anyone interested in asking whether people are cosmopolitan?

How about natalist versus antinatalist?

[Added] I don't care about this that much, but here's a question text for cosmopolitanism: "In prioritizing political or charitable causes, would you weight the interests of a person of another nationality equally with those of a fellow citizen?" (Yes or No) A link to Chris's post might also help.

Comment author: JenniferRM 19 October 2014 08:59:41AM 0 points [-]

A Pro- and Anti-Natalism question seems like it could be high value. I'm not sure what the best wording might be.

Comment author: JenniferRM 19 October 2014 03:31:30AM *  6 points [-]

To work well, I think it needs a good name. In terms of long term social dynamics, creating a meta-brand that helps smaller brands seems essential. Like when people initially see the "tested by X" logo they won't know what it means.

Assuming the web app works as intended, and assuming any significant fraction the population just stop believing any of the classes of claims that might be tested this way and lack the logo, then the process should gain more and more credibility over the course of months and years. The transition from an unknown logo to a trusted logo will be tricky for the larger institutional hack to work, and the name itself might be key to the logic of acceptance at the beginning.

I ground through various options at the command line with $ whois $OPTION | grep "[A-Z].COM"... trying to find things that get the right idea and aren't already registered.

  • DoesItWork .com (taken)
  • justtestit .com (taken)
  • efficacy .com (taken)
  • forrealz .com (taken)
  • proveitforreal .com (available!)
  • simplytested .com (taken)
  • quickproofs .com (taken)
  • openproducttesting .com (available!)
  • opensourcetesting .com (taken)
  • tested .com (taken)
  • testedclaim .com (available!)
  • thirdpartytested .com (available!)
  • 3rdpartytested .com (available!)

Namespace is huge and finding a good name seems key. The names I looked for my be too boring or too long or too easy to misspell? Please comment in response to this comment, one name suggestion per comment, and then find the 3 best suggestions from other people (assuming that there are lots to choose from) and vote them up :-)

Edited to add: I'm seeing lots of votes and no suggestions. Also, ProveItForReal seems to be winning but I think that works better in a {{citation needed}} context (ie you say {{prove it for real}} to dubious claims) but it works less well for logos on products. Imagine a logo that is worked into product's packaging that says: "TestedClaim: X gives benefit Y in Z% of users"... that seems good in that context, but {{this needs to be a tested claim}} is awkward. Surely something better is possible than either of these?

Comment author: JenniferRM 19 October 2014 03:33:41AM *  3 points [-]

3rdpartytested.com

Acronym: 3PT is distinctive. TPT less so.

As a past tense claim, it really shines if you imagine what the logo could do for a product on a website. The link says "3rd Party Tested" and you click on it and it takes you to the open study. Simple and clean.

Downside: if the name overruns a pre-existing phrase because "third party tested" means something already, then you get confusing semantic collisions if someone has third party tested products that weren't tested by Third Party Tested (the unique tool).

Comment author: JenniferRM 19 October 2014 03:31:30AM *  6 points [-]

To work well, I think it needs a good name. In terms of long term social dynamics, creating a meta-brand that helps smaller brands seems essential. Like when people initially see the "tested by X" logo they won't know what it means.

Assuming the web app works as intended, and assuming any significant fraction the population just stop believing any of the classes of claims that might be tested this way and lack the logo, then the process should gain more and more credibility over the course of months and years. The transition from an unknown logo to a trusted logo will be tricky for the larger institutional hack to work, and the name itself might be key to the logic of acceptance at the beginning.

I ground through various options at the command line with $ whois $OPTION | grep "[A-Z].COM"... trying to find things that get the right idea and aren't already registered.

  • DoesItWork .com (taken)
  • justtestit .com (taken)
  • efficacy .com (taken)
  • forrealz .com (taken)
  • proveitforreal .com (available!)
  • simplytested .com (taken)
  • quickproofs .com (taken)
  • openproducttesting .com (available!)
  • opensourcetesting .com (taken)
  • tested .com (taken)
  • testedclaim .com (available!)
  • thirdpartytested .com (available!)
  • 3rdpartytested .com (available!)

Namespace is huge and finding a good name seems key. The names I looked for my be too boring or too long or too easy to misspell? Please comment in response to this comment, one name suggestion per comment, and then find the 3 best suggestions from other people (assuming that there are lots to choose from) and vote them up :-)

Edited to add: I'm seeing lots of votes and no suggestions. Also, ProveItForReal seems to be winning but I think that works better in a {{citation needed}} context (ie you say {{prove it for real}} to dubious claims) but it works less well for logos on products. Imagine a logo that is worked into product's packaging that says: "TestedClaim: X gives benefit Y in Z% of users"... that seems good in that context, but {{this needs to be a tested claim}} is awkward. Surely something better is possible than either of these?

Comment author: JenniferRM 19 October 2014 03:33:08AM *  2 points [-]

openproducttesting.com

Acroynm: OPT (kinda cool... "opt in"?)

Openness has good connotations: honestly, transparency, etc. Very clear mission statement if it turns into an organization and the organization runs into questions about what to do next.

Comment author: JenniferRM 19 October 2014 03:31:30AM *  6 points [-]

To work well, I think it needs a good name. In terms of long term social dynamics, creating a meta-brand that helps smaller brands seems essential. Like when people initially see the "tested by X" logo they won't know what it means.

Assuming the web app works as intended, and assuming any significant fraction the population just stop believing any of the classes of claims that might be tested this way and lack the logo, then the process should gain more and more credibility over the course of months and years. The transition from an unknown logo to a trusted logo will be tricky for the larger institutional hack to work, and the name itself might be key to the logic of acceptance at the beginning.

I ground through various options at the command line with $ whois $OPTION | grep "[A-Z].COM"... trying to find things that get the right idea and aren't already registered.

  • DoesItWork .com (taken)
  • justtestit .com (taken)
  • efficacy .com (taken)
  • forrealz .com (taken)
  • proveitforreal .com (available!)
  • simplytested .com (taken)
  • quickproofs .com (taken)
  • openproducttesting .com (available!)
  • opensourcetesting .com (taken)
  • tested .com (taken)
  • testedclaim .com (available!)
  • thirdpartytested .com (available!)
  • 3rdpartytested .com (available!)

Namespace is huge and finding a good name seems key. The names I looked for my be too boring or too long or too easy to misspell? Please comment in response to this comment, one name suggestion per comment, and then find the 3 best suggestions from other people (assuming that there are lots to choose from) and vote them up :-)

Edited to add: I'm seeing lots of votes and no suggestions. Also, ProveItForReal seems to be winning but I think that works better in a {{citation needed}} context (ie you say {{prove it for real}} to dubious claims) but it works less well for logos on products. Imagine a logo that is worked into product's packaging that says: "TestedClaim: X gives benefit Y in Z% of users"... that seems good in that context, but {{this needs to be a tested claim}} is awkward. Surely something better is possible than either of these?

Comment author: JenniferRM 19 October 2014 03:32:42AM *  5 points [-]

proveitforreal.com

Acronym: PIFR.

Used like {{needs citation}} it really shines as {{prove it for real}} ...but how does it look on a product label?

Comment author: JenniferRM 19 October 2014 03:31:30AM *  6 points [-]

To work well, I think it needs a good name. In terms of long term social dynamics, creating a meta-brand that helps smaller brands seems essential. Like when people initially see the "tested by X" logo they won't know what it means.

Assuming the web app works as intended, and assuming any significant fraction the population just stop believing any of the classes of claims that might be tested this way and lack the logo, then the process should gain more and more credibility over the course of months and years. The transition from an unknown logo to a trusted logo will be tricky for the larger institutional hack to work, and the name itself might be key to the logic of acceptance at the beginning.

I ground through various options at the command line with $ whois $OPTION | grep "[A-Z].COM"... trying to find things that get the right idea and aren't already registered.

  • DoesItWork .com (taken)
  • justtestit .com (taken)
  • efficacy .com (taken)
  • forrealz .com (taken)
  • proveitforreal .com (available!)
  • simplytested .com (taken)
  • quickproofs .com (taken)
  • openproducttesting .com (available!)
  • opensourcetesting .com (taken)
  • tested .com (taken)
  • testedclaim .com (available!)
  • thirdpartytested .com (available!)
  • 3rdpartytested .com (available!)

Namespace is huge and finding a good name seems key. The names I looked for my be too boring or too long or too easy to misspell? Please comment in response to this comment, one name suggestion per comment, and then find the 3 best suggestions from other people (assuming that there are lots to choose from) and vote them up :-)

Edited to add: I'm seeing lots of votes and no suggestions. Also, ProveItForReal seems to be winning but I think that works better in a {{citation needed}} context (ie you say {{prove it for real}} to dubious claims) but it works less well for logos on products. Imagine a logo that is worked into product's packaging that says: "TestedClaim: X gives benefit Y in Z% of users"... that seems good in that context, but {{this needs to be a tested claim}} is awkward. Surely something better is possible than either of these?

Comment author: JenniferRM 19 October 2014 03:32:28AM *  0 points [-]

testedclaim.com

Acronym: TC but it is so short and simple the acronym is less likely to be used I think.

This is my personal favorite among the names I suggested, from the perspective of a logo on a bottle or a website. Very clean :-)

Comment author: JenniferRM 19 October 2014 03:31:30AM *  6 points [-]

To work well, I think it needs a good name. In terms of long term social dynamics, creating a meta-brand that helps smaller brands seems essential. Like when people initially see the "tested by X" logo they won't know what it means.

Assuming the web app works as intended, and assuming any significant fraction the population just stop believing any of the classes of claims that might be tested this way and lack the logo, then the process should gain more and more credibility over the course of months and years. The transition from an unknown logo to a trusted logo will be tricky for the larger institutional hack to work, and the name itself might be key to the logic of acceptance at the beginning.

I ground through various options at the command line with $ whois $OPTION | grep "[A-Z].COM"... trying to find things that get the right idea and aren't already registered.

  • DoesItWork .com (taken)
  • justtestit .com (taken)
  • efficacy .com (taken)
  • forrealz .com (taken)
  • proveitforreal .com (available!)
  • simplytested .com (taken)
  • quickproofs .com (taken)
  • openproducttesting .com (available!)
  • opensourcetesting .com (taken)
  • tested .com (taken)
  • testedclaim .com (available!)
  • thirdpartytested .com (available!)
  • 3rdpartytested .com (available!)

Namespace is huge and finding a good name seems key. The names I looked for my be too boring or too long or too easy to misspell? Please comment in response to this comment, one name suggestion per comment, and then find the 3 best suggestions from other people (assuming that there are lots to choose from) and vote them up :-)

Edited to add: I'm seeing lots of votes and no suggestions. Also, ProveItForReal seems to be winning but I think that works better in a {{citation needed}} context (ie you say {{prove it for real}} to dubious claims) but it works less well for logos on products. Imagine a logo that is worked into product's packaging that says: "TestedClaim: X gives benefit Y in Z% of users"... that seems good in that context, but {{this needs to be a tested claim}} is awkward. Surely something better is possible than either of these?

Comment author: Lumifer 18 October 2014 09:57:09PM 5 points [-]

the cost of doing these less flexible studies will approach the cost of the raw product to be tested. For most web companies, that's $0.

Nope. The cost of doing less flexible studies will be the cost of losing that flexibility. For companies which expect a particular result from a study this cost can be considerable.

Comment author: JenniferRM 18 October 2014 10:14:06PM *  3 points [-]

Do you mean that companies might see the opportunity cost of their ability to (amorally) rig a study as a bad thing? Or do you mean that companies might (legitimately) need complex study design to show a real but qualified positive effect?

If the former, then this proposal seems already to have taken that into account as a chief reason for creating the institution in the first place. If the latter then it might be possible to add options for important and epistemically useful variations in study design to the web app.

In response to Fighting Mosquitos
Comment author: JenniferRM 17 October 2014 03:42:10PM 5 points [-]

View more: Next