This is excellent news. Of course, CSICOP is a near and dear friend, but it always seemed such a tongue-twister of an acronym, and the subliminal similarity to "cops" and "psi" gave it faintly sinister overtones. The new acronym is simpler, easier to deal with and has the added benefit of linking (for the first time) to the title of their flagship magazine.
Well, there are three of them, they are extremely popular and they are already in syndication on cable, so it’ll be at least a few years.
As an example, I was checking other cable channels while waiting for something I wanted to watch to come on last night. I happened to click on a channel that was showing some sort of marathon of a show called, I believe, Mayberry, with a sheriff, a little boy (Ron Howard) and a deputy (Don Knotts). Just as I opened the channel someone was saying that they had a nine year run, and they’ve been showing reruns for forty years.
So, I think CSI will cause confusion for a long, long time.
[quote author=“advocatus”]I don’t see what’s wrong with the old name. I thought it was perfect (except for maybe the “cops” subtext).
Yes, well, that’s one reason. I think the bigger reasons were explained on the website I linked to above: the focus on the “paranormal” and the unwieldy length of the acronym. (See in particular the essay by Ken Frazier).
But do note that this doesn’t signify any change in their aims or scope. It’s more of a marketing change, aimed at simplifying their profile to the public.
The January/February issue of Skeptical Inquirer is out already, and there was an article explaining the name change. I have to grudgingly agree, I guess. The main reason seemed to be that the former name was, as you say, too long. I’ll get used to it, I guess!
[quote author=“dougsmith”][quote author=“George Benedik”]They also need to do something about the design of the Skeptical Inquirer. What they have now is absolutely horrible. :x
Can you be more specific? I have the issue but haven’t read it yet.
You don’t need to read it. Just look at it! And then look at some magazines like Nature, New Scientist, et al. I don’t know how much money CSICOP has, but surely they can do better than that. Even the design of CSICOP’s and CFI’s websites is pretty bad. And what’s up with the CFI’s logo? Is that a ‘sperm’? I personally have a really hard time looking at things I don’t find visually attractive. Call me a crazy, but I DO! judge a book by its cover. Can’t help it!
That said, the Point of Inquiry website looks good.
Yes, there are definitely problems with the cover, but I do think they have gotten marginally better over the past months; also SI tends to be better than its sister publication in that regard. (FWIW).
Agreed about the CFI logo. And the PoI website.
I do believe they are in the midst of planning a general overhaul of the look, at least for the web portion of CFI.
Looks very nice, George. I think they’re already working with a design team, but the person to contact would be Thomas Donnelly, I’d imagine. He’d know much more about their plans, or might be able to refer you to others.
[quote author=“dougsmith”]Looks very nice, George. I think they’re already working with a design team, but the person to contact would be Thomas Donnelly, I’d imagine. He’d know much more about their plans, or might be able to refer you to others.
Thanks, Doug. I hope my criticism didn’t sound too harsh.:? I am a big fan of all the work CSI and CFI are doing (except for the graphics…:wink:).