[davnicwil]

Very unrelated to the article, but I think 'arXiv' as a brand is bad, and really detrimental to what the institution aims to accomplish.

That is, it's not readily parseable, it really gives an insider term vibe - like this isn't for you if you don't already know what it means or how you should read or say it. It sort of reminds me of the overuse of latin and latinate terms generally in the old professions and, well, the academy.

Just always struck me as being somewhat at odds with the goal.

[john-titor]

I wonder what makes you feel that. I've been publishing preprints close to a decade on arxiv now and never had any particular feelings about it.

To me it's just a way to get out your work fast, so that there is already a trace of it on the Internets - nothing more and nothing less.

> That is, it's not readily parseable, it really gives an insider term vibe...

Isn't that normal with highly specialized research fields? I agree many papers could benefit from clearer wording, but working in a niche means you sometimes don't reach a broader audience

[davnicwil]

It's an opinion, and you feeling no particular way about it is equally valid.

But I did justify and maybe to reword slightly, surely if one of the main drivers is opening up research, the brand name should be something that's less obscure and more accessible / understandable as to what it is on first sight?

Maybe arXiv evoking the word 'archive' with an ancient Greek twist does that for some, but it's clearly a bit cryptic for many, and if the point is to open up probably the brand should just be something much plainer.

[aragilar]

No, it's to be a pre-print server. If someone doesn't know what that means, then they shouldn't be using arXiv.

[davnicwil]

everyone has a first time they see a thing and don't yet know what it is.

Using a brand as a filter where you have to already know what it means to get it is exactly the opposite of what it's supposed to achieve.

Consider the most exclusive (successful) brands that exist. Even there, where exclusivity is a brand goal, none of them have this property of being obscure on first contact.

[bonoboTP]

You usually get introduced to it by your academic supervisor or collaborators as a masters or PhD student. If you're a solo researcher who has made a significant contribution on the frontier of science, I'm sure you'll be able to understand how Arxiv works as well. Because I assume you have had some conversations with other experts in the field. If you're a full on autodidact with no contact to any other researchers in the field, well, maybe it's better if you chat with some other people in that field.

Its reasonable to have a tradeoff here to avoid cranks and now AI psychosis slop. You can still post on research gate and academia.edu or you own github page or webhosting.

[Cordiali]

I've never even connected the 'X' to the Greek letter chi. I just kinda accepted it as one of many groovy web 2.0 misspellings in search of a domain and trademark.

[matt-noonan]

This is particularly funny because arXiv doesn't just predate Web 2.0, it nearly predates the public web entirely (only missing it by about two weeks)

[jltsiren]

It's a classic story of someone having to pick a name quickly, which then gets established long before anyone who cares about branding is aware of its existence.

The original service didn't even have a name, only a description, and it was amusingly hosted at xxx.lanl.gov. But LANL wasn't really interested in it, and the founder eventually left for Cornell. At that point, the service needed a domain name, but archive.org was already taken.

And besides, the name has Ancient Greek influences. A similar Latinate term might be something like "archive".

[bonoboTP]

I thought the X was an allusion to LaTeX.

[jltsiren]

Usually, when you see "ch" in a Latin word, it represents a "χ" in the original Greek word. Both TeX and arXiv use "X" to represent it instead. TeX because Knuth chose to be fancy, and arXiv because "archive" was no longer available.

[davnicwil]

Interesting, thanks for the context! Makes it more understandable as a choice.

[nixon_why69]

> like this isn't for you if you don't already know what it means

Isn't that actually kindof a good brand signal for a repo of very specialized papers? "Fun with learning" in comic sans wouldn't help credibility.

[vasco]

This the type of guy that will suggest paper.ly as a better name with a straight face and then we wonder why the internet is turning to shit

[spiralcoaster]

You're right. The name is just classic gatekeeping and elitist, clearly. I am 100% certain that's why they chose it. If they really cared about inclusion, they would have called it research.io

[vulcan01]

By your criterion, Google, Apple, and Amazon are terrible names as well.

[davnicwil]

> if you don't already know what it means or how you should read or say it

Google I'll grant you, though it's still pretty phonetic and easy to read. The other two not at all, they're incredibly well known instantaneously recognisable words.