Should we change the name “Campaign” to “Project” on Giveth TRACE?
Argument in favour
It’s difficult for a user to understand the Giveth ecosystem when we have so many different names - some of which are for similar things. On Giveth io, when a project gets “verified”, it can get added to TRACE and become “Traceable”… and then it will exist as a “Project” on io and a “Campaign” on TRACE. Arguably confusing. This is also the case for campaigns from TRACE that get added to “io”. The same project is a called both a “Campaign” and a “Project”… depending on where you look for it.
Renaming “Campaigns” to “Projects” creates a nice simplification for the user, and ultimately the term “Project” is broad enough that it can be used to describe the Campaigns that already exist on TRACE. This also creates a nice terminology bridge for the intergration of the two DApps.
Argument against
Campaigns are more than just mere “Projects”. Campaigns have more features… They have Traces below them, they can delegate funds to those Traces. When a Giver donates to a “Campaign” they are entrusting the Campaign with the power to put those funds where they are needed most… and the Giver is empowered to see the movement of those funds. Projects are more simple. They are different and should have different names.
Some miscellaneous thoughts I have…
I remember some discussion about how “projects” on io can refer to either Traces or Campaigns… But right now, with our current level of integration, Campaigns can become Projects and Projects can become Campaigns… but there is no option for Projects and Traces to merge directly. So I supposed we need to decide whether that option should exist and how we should implement it… Or we make things more simplified and have the bridge be only between Campaigns and Projects.
Anyway, a poll!
Should we change the name “Campaign” to “Project” on Giveth TRACE?
Yes
No
0voters
Please leave your thoughts as comments below.
Update September 19, 2021
The people have spoken! We shall not change “Campaign” to “Project” on TRACE
Throughout my experience helping to onboard projects/campaigns on to both platforms, all the different terminology is pretty confusing to the user.
In my opinion,we should have one or the other and since we are putting most of our efforts into the development on .io, it seems that the most logical one to choose would be “project”. I dont see why projects can’t still have traces under them in the future if they want to be “traceable projects”.
Arguably, if we are working towards having only one DApp and one interface in the future, it might be resonable to just let the term Campaign fall off in the future and use current dev resources for other higher priority things.
In fact, campaign and project are totally different entities. Having the same name for these two brings hardship onto development and makes conversations more confusing honestly. Also, renaming will cost considerable resources in term of development and maintenance.
As a user perspective, we can keep the project name for donors and they will not notice the existence of campaign at all. For managers we can simply teach them how a traceable project is backed by a campaign and they should user the campaign in trace to manage their resources. I guess it would be understandable for managers
That’s why I wanted to hear your thoughts. Dev efforts are not justified for the name change, even “at the cost” of UX. For that reason I vote No to change.
Thanks @amin, moved me from a Yay to a Nay as well. I think keeping the project name for donors is a good move and just having managers learn campaign, because I do think the names can be confusing for users and simplifying that as much as we can is to our benefit.
