[uf-discuss] Size considerations (or how to choose abbreviations)

Sat Oct 21 10:31:55 PDT 2006

In message
<b5d3b8c70610210937m7d0b4b71v957ef9558aff847f at mail.gmail.com>, Charles
Roper <charles.roper at gmail.com> writes
>> >I think comparing geo and sci, etc. is not a great example as I think
>> >geo can be thought of as a well known abbreviation.
>>>> Yes, it clearly identifies rocks, to geologists ;-)
>>>> But seriously, do you really think it's well known, outside of the "web
>> 2.0" community?
>>I might poll some people round the office (where most people's
>primiary interests biology, conservation and ecology) and see what
>they think. I'm going to make a guess that they'll say "geography" or
>"geographical".

I hope you don't conduct all your experiments with such built in bias
;-) What about asking some non-scientists? And some people called
George!
A Google search for "geo" has just returned, in the top five results,
none with the meaning "geograph*"
An eBay search finds "Geo V" coins and stamps and "Geo III" silver.
Wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geo> also has a number of other
non-geographical uses.
-- 
Andy Mabbett
 Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>
 Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>