Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Our Logo Looks Like Underpants: A Case Study in Internationalization

blog.rjmetrics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 115 posts

Re: Our Logo Looks Like Underpants: A Case Study in Internationalization

#101

Post by stan_rogers »

bjterry wrote: post #60

It's odd that no one has mentioned this, but part of the reason no American thought they looked like "Y-fronts" is because American briefs don't have a Y-front. I have never seen underwear that looks like the first and third example on the rjmetrics site. If you do a comparative images search for "briefs" and "y-front" I think it'll be pretty obvious.

Jockey (and only Jockey, as far as I know) used to have a Y-front, which is one of the reasons they never sold well in Canada. I still completely ignore the brand even though they changed to a more typical fly a couple of decades ago.

Re: Our Logo Looks Like Underpants: A Case Study in Internationalization

#102

Post by kamjam »

bjterry wrote: post #60

It's odd that no one has mentioned this, but part of the reason no American thought they looked like "Y-fronts" is because American briefs don't have a Y-front. I have never seen underwear that looks like the first and third example on the rjmetrics site. If you do a comparative images search for "briefs" and "y-front" I think it'll be pretty obvious.

The term “y-fronts” never caught on the US because American underwear maker Jockey convinced the buying public to use the term “Jockeys” instead.

I'm pretty sure I have seen "y-fronts" in US shops and in the movies. The post specifically mentions that people call them jockey briefs in the US.

Re: Our Logo Looks Like Underpants: A Case Study in Internationalization

#103

Post by moocowduckquack »

jakestein wrote: post #38
TeMPOraL wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably upper management without sense of humour.

I can verify this [1]. The management team does not have a sense of humor. [1] I am cofounder and COO

Just to be sure that you are who you claim, can we quickly take a look at the colour of your pants?

Re: Our Logo Looks Like Underpants: A Case Study in Internationalization

#104

Post by moocowduckquack »

molf wrote: post #26

The first logo is not a dodecahedron; the geometry is wrong. In reality it would be impossible to see all the three faces drawn at the edge of the logo from the same perspective. Perhaps people subtly pick up on this geometric imprecision and more easily associate it with something else?

If it was a small dodecahedron, like about the size of a dice, you would see those three faces unless you closed an eye.

Re: Our Logo Looks Like Underpants: A Case Study in Internationalization

#105

Post by dylangs1030 »

carlob wrote: post #49
JunkDNA wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen them smack dab in the middle of boston.com "The Big Picture". You basically can't look at more than a few of the photos without answering a google survey question. For me, looking at this page now asks me who my auto insurance provider is with: http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2013/10/broken_lives_of_fuk...

It must be blocked by AdBlock, because I've never seen one. I'm realizing now I'm missing a pretty large part of the web, by using AdBlock and Ghostery: most social share buttons, ads, Disqus comments… I should probably go on the unadulterated web one day a month, just to see what it looks like.

Don't do it. The web is dark and full of terrors.

Re: Our Logo Looks Like Underpants: A Case Study in Internationalization

#106

Post by Domenic_S »

moocowduckquack wrote: post #104
molf wrote: post #26

The first logo is not a dodecahedron; the geometry is wrong. In reality it would be impossible to see all the three faces drawn at the edge of the logo from the same perspective. Perhaps people subtly pick up on this geometric imprecision and more easily associate it with something else?

If it was a small dodecahedron, like about the size of a dice, you would see those three faces unless you closed an eye.

Trivia: 'die' is the singular form of the plural 'dice'.

Re: Our Logo Looks Like Underpants: A Case Study in Internationalization

#107

Post by moocowduckquack »

Domenic_S wrote: post #106
moocowduckquack wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it was a small dodecahedron, like about the size of a dice, you would see those three faces unless you closed an eye.

Trivia: 'die' is the singular form of the plural 'dice'.

Extra trivia, so is dice. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dice?q=dice

Re: Our Logo Looks Like Underpants: A Case Study in Internationalization

#108

Post by Domenic_S »

moocowduckquack wrote: post #107
Domenic_S wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trivia: 'die' is the singular form of the plural 'dice'.

Extra trivia, so is dice. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dice?q=dice

Yeah, that's a position the Oxford dictionary took but it's not common. Although I guess the singular 'die' is only really popular with dice nerds.

http://grammarist.com/usage/dice-die/

http://www.websource.it/search/%22a%20die%22/%22a%20dice%22

Re: Our Logo Looks Like Underpants: A Case Study in Internationalization

#110

Post by moocowduckquack »

Domenic_S wrote: post #108
moocowduckquack wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extra trivia, so is dice. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dice?q=dice

Yeah, that's a position the Oxford dictionary took but it's not common. Although I guess the singular 'die' is only really popular with dice nerds. http://grammarist.com/usage/dice-die/ http://www.websource.it/search/%22a%20die%22/%22a%20dice%22

Ay, I ken alright t'speak proper like.
Post reply on HN