Using well-established abbreviations for new concepts in the same field
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
Should a researcher try her best to avoid using existing abbreviations (such as IEEE, WHO, DNA, ANOVA, BMI, CERN, NASA, UNESCO, OPCW, NHS, CDC ...) that are (well-)known in her fields, when creating abbreviations for new concepts (methods, substances, studies ...) in the same field?
Or is it OK if the abbreviation for the new concept is just defined where it is used (e.g., in a publication)?
writing-style
asked Jan 29 at 4:53
OrionOrion
2,46312541
add a comment |
Should a researcher try her best to avoid using existing abbreviations (such as IEEE, WHO, DNA, ANOVA, BMI, CERN, NASA, UNESCO, OPCW, NHS, CDC ...) that are (well-)known in her fields, when creating abbreviations for new concepts (methods, substances, studies ...) in the same field?
Or is it OK if the abbreviation for the new concept is just defined where it is used (e.g., in a publication)?
writing-style
asked Jan 29 at 4:53
OrionOrion
2,46312541
This is not good practice : global search algorithms will find "results" that are not relevant... engineers have to use letters for things and use an upper case letter with descriptive subscripts to focus the meaning ie Cf (coefficient of friction), Cd (coefficient of drag), Cl (coefficient of lift, could be confused with the symbol for chlorine, but these are subscripts not lower case...
– Solar Mike
Jan 29 at 7:34
2
You should avoid using abbreviations entirely. Give your new concept a mnemonic name.
– JeffE
Jan 29 at 8:50
7
"You should avoid using abbreviations entirely." "– JeffE". *cough*
– David Richerby
Jan 29 at 10:34
5
@DavidRicherby I'm going to assume Jeff has taken his own advice, and from now on will pronounce that name in my head as "jeffy" rather than Jeff E. There's also a mod over at Biology and Psych/Neuro AliceD, who is indeed not Alice D. but intended to be read as an entire phrase.
– Bryan Krause
Jan 29 at 16:32
add a comment |
Should a researcher try her best to avoid using existing abbreviations (such as IEEE, WHO, DNA, ANOVA, BMI, CERN, NASA, UNESCO, OPCW, NHS, CDC ...) that are (well-)known in her fields, when creating abbreviations for new concepts (methods, substances, studies ...) in the same field?
Or is it OK if the abbreviation for the new concept is just defined where it is used (e.g., in a publication)?
writing-style
asked Jan 29 at 4:53
OrionOrion
2,46312541
Should a researcher try her best to avoid using existing abbreviations (such as IEEE, WHO, DNA, ANOVA, BMI, CERN, NASA, UNESCO, OPCW, NHS, CDC ...) that are (well-)known in her fields, when creating abbreviations for new concepts (methods, substances, studies ...) in the same field?
Or is it OK if the abbreviation for the new concept is just defined where it is used (e.g., in a publication)?
writing-style
writing-style
asked Jan 29 at 4:53
OrionOrion
2,46312541
asked Jan 29 at 4:53
OrionOrion
2,46312541
edited Jan 29 at 16:39
Orion
asked Jan 29 at 4:53
OrionOrion
2,46312541
asked Jan 29 at 4:53
OrionOrion
2,46312541
asked Jan 29 at 4:53
OrionOrion
2,46312541
2,46312541
This is not good practice : global search algorithms will find "results" that are not relevant... engineers have to use letters for things and use an upper case letter with descriptive subscripts to focus the meaning ie Cf (coefficient of friction), Cd (coefficient of drag), Cl (coefficient of lift, could be confused with the symbol for chlorine, but these are subscripts not lower case...
– Solar Mike
Jan 29 at 7:34
2
You should avoid using abbreviations entirely. Give your new concept a mnemonic name.
– JeffE
Jan 29 at 8:50
7
"You should avoid using abbreviations entirely." "– JeffE". *cough*
– David Richerby
Jan 29 at 10:34
5
@DavidRicherby I'm going to assume Jeff has taken his own advice, and from now on will pronounce that name in my head as "jeffy" rather than Jeff E. There's also a mod over at Biology and Psych/Neuro AliceD, who is indeed not Alice D. but intended to be read as an entire phrase.
– Bryan Krause
Jan 29 at 16:32
add a comment |
This is not good practice : global search algorithms will find "results" that are not relevant... engineers have to use letters for things and use an upper case letter with descriptive subscripts to focus the meaning ie Cf (coefficient of friction), Cd (coefficient of drag), Cl (coefficient of lift, could be confused with the symbol for chlorine, but these are subscripts not lower case...
– Solar Mike
Jan 29 at 7:34
2
You should avoid using abbreviations entirely. Give your new concept a mnemonic name.
– JeffE
Jan 29 at 8:50
7
"You should avoid using abbreviations entirely." "– JeffE". *cough*
– David Richerby
Jan 29 at 10:34
5
@DavidRicherby I'm going to assume Jeff has taken his own advice, and from now on will pronounce that name in my head as "jeffy" rather than Jeff E. There's also a mod over at Biology and Psych/Neuro AliceD, who is indeed not Alice D. but intended to be read as an entire phrase.
– Bryan Krause
Jan 29 at 16:32
This is not good practice : global search algorithms will find "results" that are not relevant... engineers have to use letters for things and use an upper case letter with descriptive subscripts to focus the meaning ie Cf (coefficient of friction), Cd (coefficient of drag), Cl (coefficient of lift, could be confused with the symbol for chlorine, but these are subscripts not lower case...
– Solar Mike
Jan 29 at 7:34
This is not good practice : global search algorithms will find "results" that are not relevant... engineers have to use letters for things and use an upper case letter with descriptive subscripts to focus the meaning ie Cf (coefficient of friction), Cd (coefficient of drag), Cl (coefficient of lift, could be confused with the symbol for chlorine, but these are subscripts not lower case...
– Solar Mike
Jan 29 at 7:34
2
2
You should avoid using abbreviations entirely. Give your new concept a mnemonic name.
– JeffE
Jan 29 at 8:50
You should avoid using abbreviations entirely. Give your new concept a mnemonic name.
– JeffE
Jan 29 at 8:50
7
7
"You should avoid using abbreviations entirely." "– JeffE". *cough*
– David Richerby
Jan 29 at 10:34
"You should avoid using abbreviations entirely." "– JeffE". *cough*
– David Richerby
Jan 29 at 10:34
5
5
@DavidRicherby I'm going to assume Jeff has taken his own advice, and from now on will pronounce that name in my head as "jeffy" rather than Jeff E. There's also a mod over at Biology and Psych/Neuro AliceD, who is indeed not Alice D. but intended to be read as an entire phrase.
– Bryan Krause
Jan 29 at 16:32
@DavidRicherby I'm going to assume Jeff has taken his own advice, and from now on will pronounce that name in my head as "jeffy" rather than Jeff E. There's also a mod over at Biology and Psych/Neuro AliceD, who is indeed not Alice D. but intended to be read as an entire phrase.
– Bryan Krause
Jan 29 at 16:32
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Yes, you should avoid using well-established acronyms to mean something else. I would especially avoid those like the ones you present as examples that are likely more recognizable as the acronym than what the acronym stands for: they are effectively words by themselves with a specific meaning.
answered Jan 29 at 4:58
Bryan KrauseBryan Krause
13.2k13862
add a comment |
Yes. But then again, no. Depends.
If you can easily avoid it, sure - avoid it. It will only cause confusion in the long run. But this confusion is dependent of the previous acronym being relevant (as opposed to known) in that specific field. So if you are creating a new modular iterating algorithm (stupid example, but you catch my drift), and your last name is Brown, it is OK to call it the Brown Modular Iterator (BMI). No one, in context, will think this is the Body Mass Index.
A slightly different example of when it is OK (not, mind you, optimal) to use an existing acronym which can actually cause confusion, is when there are specific naming conventions. This is how we have the American Sociological Association (ASA), the American Statistical Association (ASA), and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) - with most societies holding the convention of country_societyname_association, and medical societies to the country_societyof_societyname.
answered Jan 29 at 5:33
Yuval SpieglerYuval Spiegler
31116
2
On the other hand, it's going to be really hard to Google for BMI because Google will be convinced you mean body mass index. So, really, re-using existing common abbreviations seems like a pretty bad idea.
– David Richerby
Jan 29 at 10:32
3
@DavidRicherby To be fair, Google tends to do well if you add context clues, at least when there's little overlap between the fields. E.g. "BMI airport" finds the airport just fine, but "BMI burger" probably won't find the Big Mac Index.
– Anyon
Jan 29 at 13:35
1
@Anyon Actually, “BMI burger” (without the quotes) in a Google search gave me the Big Mac Index as the third search result. (The first link was to a burger event at Broadcast Music Inc. in Nashville, and the second link was about the Body Mass Index. YMMV since Google’s results are personalized, but it seems to do a decent job, even with overloaded abbreviations.)
– Mitchell Spector
Jan 29 at 16:26
OP specified that are (well-)known in their fields which I suppose is a bit grammatically ambiguous but I took to mean "their" field to relate to the researcher, rather than the acronyms. The Brown Modular Iterator would probably not be used in the same field as the Body Mass Index, but perhaps should be avoided since BMI is used as such a popularly known acronym, alongside others like NASA. I think the ASA examples are a better counter example. Working as a statistician in an anesthesiology department has me in a bit of a bind personally, however...
– Bryan Krause
Jan 29 at 16:30
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "415"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f123957%2fusing-well-established-abbreviations-for-new-concepts-in-the-same-field%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Yes, you should avoid using well-established acronyms to mean something else. I would especially avoid those like the ones you present as examples that are likely more recognizable as the acronym than what the acronym stands for: they are effectively words by themselves with a specific meaning.
answered Jan 29 at 4:58
Bryan KrauseBryan Krause
13.2k13862
add a comment |
Yes, you should avoid using well-established acronyms to mean something else. I would especially avoid those like the ones you present as examples that are likely more recognizable as the acronym than what the acronym stands for: they are effectively words by themselves with a specific meaning.
answered Jan 29 at 4:58
Bryan KrauseBryan Krause
13.2k13862
add a comment |
Yes, you should avoid using well-established acronyms to mean something else. I would especially avoid those like the ones you present as examples that are likely more recognizable as the acronym than what the acronym stands for: they are effectively words by themselves with a specific meaning.
answered Jan 29 at 4:58
Bryan KrauseBryan Krause
13.2k13862
Yes, you should avoid using well-established acronyms to mean something else. I would especially avoid those like the ones you present as examples that are likely more recognizable as the acronym than what the acronym stands for: they are effectively words by themselves with a specific meaning.
answered Jan 29 at 4:58
Bryan KrauseBryan Krause
13.2k13862
answered Jan 29 at 4:58
Bryan KrauseBryan Krause
13.2k13862
answered Jan 29 at 4:58
Bryan KrauseBryan Krause
13.2k13862
answered Jan 29 at 4:58
Bryan KrauseBryan Krause
13.2k13862
13.2k13862
add a comment |
add a comment |
Yes. But then again, no. Depends.
If you can easily avoid it, sure - avoid it. It will only cause confusion in the long run. But this confusion is dependent of the previous acronym being relevant (as opposed to known) in that specific field. So if you are creating a new modular iterating algorithm (stupid example, but you catch my drift), and your last name is Brown, it is OK to call it the Brown Modular Iterator (BMI). No one, in context, will think this is the Body Mass Index.
A slightly different example of when it is OK (not, mind you, optimal) to use an existing acronym which can actually cause confusion, is when there are specific naming conventions. This is how we have the American Sociological Association (ASA), the American Statistical Association (ASA), and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) - with most societies holding the convention of country_societyname_association, and medical societies to the country_societyof_societyname.
answered Jan 29 at 5:33
Yuval SpieglerYuval Spiegler
31116
2
On the other hand, it's going to be really hard to Google for BMI because Google will be convinced you mean body mass index. So, really, re-using existing common abbreviations seems like a pretty bad idea.
– David Richerby
Jan 29 at 10:32
3
@DavidRicherby To be fair, Google tends to do well if you add context clues, at least when there's little overlap between the fields. E.g. "BMI airport" finds the airport just fine, but "BMI burger" probably won't find the Big Mac Index.
– Anyon
Jan 29 at 13:35
1
@Anyon Actually, “BMI burger” (without the quotes) in a Google search gave me the Big Mac Index as the third search result. (The first link was to a burger event at Broadcast Music Inc. in Nashville, and the second link was about the Body Mass Index. YMMV since Google’s results are personalized, but it seems to do a decent job, even with overloaded abbreviations.)
– Mitchell Spector
Jan 29 at 16:26
OP specified that are (well-)known in their fields which I suppose is a bit grammatically ambiguous but I took to mean "their" field to relate to the researcher, rather than the acronyms. The Brown Modular Iterator would probably not be used in the same field as the Body Mass Index, but perhaps should be avoided since BMI is used as such a popularly known acronym, alongside others like NASA. I think the ASA examples are a better counter example. Working as a statistician in an anesthesiology department has me in a bit of a bind personally, however...
– Bryan Krause
Jan 29 at 16:30
add a comment |
Yes. But then again, no. Depends.
If you can easily avoid it, sure - avoid it. It will only cause confusion in the long run. But this confusion is dependent of the previous acronym being relevant (as opposed to known) in that specific field. So if you are creating a new modular iterating algorithm (stupid example, but you catch my drift), and your last name is Brown, it is OK to call it the Brown Modular Iterator (BMI). No one, in context, will think this is the Body Mass Index.
A slightly different example of when it is OK (not, mind you, optimal) to use an existing acronym which can actually cause confusion, is when there are specific naming conventions. This is how we have the American Sociological Association (ASA), the American Statistical Association (ASA), and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) - with most societies holding the convention of country_societyname_association, and medical societies to the country_societyof_societyname.
answered Jan 29 at 5:33
Yuval SpieglerYuval Spiegler
31116
2
On the other hand, it's going to be really hard to Google for BMI because Google will be convinced you mean body mass index. So, really, re-using existing common abbreviations seems like a pretty bad idea.
– David Richerby
Jan 29 at 10:32
3
@DavidRicherby To be fair, Google tends to do well if you add context clues, at least when there's little overlap between the fields. E.g. "BMI airport" finds the airport just fine, but "BMI burger" probably won't find the Big Mac Index.
– Anyon
Jan 29 at 13:35
1
@Anyon Actually, “BMI burger” (without the quotes) in a Google search gave me the Big Mac Index as the third search result. (The first link was to a burger event at Broadcast Music Inc. in Nashville, and the second link was about the Body Mass Index. YMMV since Google’s results are personalized, but it seems to do a decent job, even with overloaded abbreviations.)
– Mitchell Spector
Jan 29 at 16:26
OP specified that are (well-)known in their fields which I suppose is a bit grammatically ambiguous but I took to mean "their" field to relate to the researcher, rather than the acronyms. The Brown Modular Iterator would probably not be used in the same field as the Body Mass Index, but perhaps should be avoided since BMI is used as such a popularly known acronym, alongside others like NASA. I think the ASA examples are a better counter example. Working as a statistician in an anesthesiology department has me in a bit of a bind personally, however...
– Bryan Krause
Jan 29 at 16:30
add a comment |
Yes. But then again, no. Depends.
If you can easily avoid it, sure - avoid it. It will only cause confusion in the long run. But this confusion is dependent of the previous acronym being relevant (as opposed to known) in that specific field. So if you are creating a new modular iterating algorithm (stupid example, but you catch my drift), and your last name is Brown, it is OK to call it the Brown Modular Iterator (BMI). No one, in context, will think this is the Body Mass Index.
A slightly different example of when it is OK (not, mind you, optimal) to use an existing acronym which can actually cause confusion, is when there are specific naming conventions. This is how we have the American Sociological Association (ASA), the American Statistical Association (ASA), and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) - with most societies holding the convention of country_societyname_association, and medical societies to the country_societyof_societyname.
answered Jan 29 at 5:33
Yuval SpieglerYuval Spiegler
31116
Yes. But then again, no. Depends.
If you can easily avoid it, sure - avoid it. It will only cause confusion in the long run. But this confusion is dependent of the previous acronym being relevant (as opposed to known) in that specific field. So if you are creating a new modular iterating algorithm (stupid example, but you catch my drift), and your last name is Brown, it is OK to call it the Brown Modular Iterator (BMI). No one, in context, will think this is the Body Mass Index.
A slightly different example of when it is OK (not, mind you, optimal) to use an existing acronym which can actually cause confusion, is when there are specific naming conventions. This is how we have the American Sociological Association (ASA), the American Statistical Association (ASA), and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) - with most societies holding the convention of country_societyname_association, and medical societies to the country_societyof_societyname.
answered Jan 29 at 5:33
Yuval SpieglerYuval Spiegler
31116
answered Jan 29 at 5:33
Yuval SpieglerYuval Spiegler
31116
answered Jan 29 at 5:33
Yuval SpieglerYuval Spiegler
31116
answered Jan 29 at 5:33
Yuval SpieglerYuval Spiegler
31116
31116
2
On the other hand, it's going to be really hard to Google for BMI because Google will be convinced you mean body mass index. So, really, re-using existing common abbreviations seems like a pretty bad idea.
– David Richerby
Jan 29 at 10:32
3
@DavidRicherby To be fair, Google tends to do well if you add context clues, at least when there's little overlap between the fields. E.g. "BMI airport" finds the airport just fine, but "BMI burger" probably won't find the Big Mac Index.
– Anyon
Jan 29 at 13:35
1
@Anyon Actually, “BMI burger” (without the quotes) in a Google search gave me the Big Mac Index as the third search result. (The first link was to a burger event at Broadcast Music Inc. in Nashville, and the second link was about the Body Mass Index. YMMV since Google’s results are personalized, but it seems to do a decent job, even with overloaded abbreviations.)
– Mitchell Spector
Jan 29 at 16:26
OP specified that are (well-)known in their fields which I suppose is a bit grammatically ambiguous but I took to mean "their" field to relate to the researcher, rather than the acronyms. The Brown Modular Iterator would probably not be used in the same field as the Body Mass Index, but perhaps should be avoided since BMI is used as such a popularly known acronym, alongside others like NASA. I think the ASA examples are a better counter example. Working as a statistician in an anesthesiology department has me in a bit of a bind personally, however...
– Bryan Krause
Jan 29 at 16:30
add a comment |
2
On the other hand, it's going to be really hard to Google for BMI because Google will be convinced you mean body mass index. So, really, re-using existing common abbreviations seems like a pretty bad idea.
– David Richerby
Jan 29 at 10:32
3
@DavidRicherby To be fair, Google tends to do well if you add context clues, at least when there's little overlap between the fields. E.g. "BMI airport" finds the airport just fine, but "BMI burger" probably won't find the Big Mac Index.
– Anyon
Jan 29 at 13:35
1
@Anyon Actually, “BMI burger” (without the quotes) in a Google search gave me the Big Mac Index as the third search result. (The first link was to a burger event at Broadcast Music Inc. in Nashville, and the second link was about the Body Mass Index. YMMV since Google’s results are personalized, but it seems to do a decent job, even with overloaded abbreviations.)
– Mitchell Spector
Jan 29 at 16:26
OP specified that are (well-)known in their fields which I suppose is a bit grammatically ambiguous but I took to mean "their" field to relate to the researcher, rather than the acronyms. The Brown Modular Iterator would probably not be used in the same field as the Body Mass Index, but perhaps should be avoided since BMI is used as such a popularly known acronym, alongside others like NASA. I think the ASA examples are a better counter example. Working as a statistician in an anesthesiology department has me in a bit of a bind personally, however...
– Bryan Krause
Jan 29 at 16:30
2
2
On the other hand, it's going to be really hard to Google for BMI because Google will be convinced you mean body mass index. So, really, re-using existing common abbreviations seems like a pretty bad idea.
– David Richerby
Jan 29 at 10:32
On the other hand, it's going to be really hard to Google for BMI because Google will be convinced you mean body mass index. So, really, re-using existing common abbreviations seems like a pretty bad idea.
– David Richerby
Jan 29 at 10:32
3
3
@DavidRicherby To be fair, Google tends to do well if you add context clues, at least when there's little overlap between the fields. E.g. "BMI airport" finds the airport just fine, but "BMI burger" probably won't find the Big Mac Index.
– Anyon
Jan 29 at 13:35
@DavidRicherby To be fair, Google tends to do well if you add context clues, at least when there's little overlap between the fields. E.g. "BMI airport" finds the airport just fine, but "BMI burger" probably won't find the Big Mac Index.
– Anyon
Jan 29 at 13:35
1
1
@Anyon Actually, “BMI burger” (without the quotes) in a Google search gave me the Big Mac Index as the third search result. (The first link was to a burger event at Broadcast Music Inc. in Nashville, and the second link was about the Body Mass Index. YMMV since Google’s results are personalized, but it seems to do a decent job, even with overloaded abbreviations.)
– Mitchell Spector
Jan 29 at 16:26
@Anyon Actually, “BMI burger” (without the quotes) in a Google search gave me the Big Mac Index as the third search result. (The first link was to a burger event at Broadcast Music Inc. in Nashville, and the second link was about the Body Mass Index. YMMV since Google’s results are personalized, but it seems to do a decent job, even with overloaded abbreviations.)
– Mitchell Spector
Jan 29 at 16:26
OP specified that are (well-)known in their fields which I suppose is a bit grammatically ambiguous but I took to mean "their" field to relate to the researcher, rather than the acronyms. The Brown Modular Iterator would probably not be used in the same field as the Body Mass Index, but perhaps should be avoided since BMI is used as such a popularly known acronym, alongside others like NASA. I think the ASA examples are a better counter example. Working as a statistician in an anesthesiology department has me in a bit of a bind personally, however...
– Bryan Krause
Jan 29 at 16:30
OP specified that are (well-)known in their fields which I suppose is a bit grammatically ambiguous but I took to mean "their" field to relate to the researcher, rather than the acronyms. The Brown Modular Iterator would probably not be used in the same field as the Body Mass Index, but perhaps should be avoided since BMI is used as such a popularly known acronym, alongside others like NASA. I think the ASA examples are a better counter example. Working as a statistician in an anesthesiology department has me in a bit of a bind personally, however...
– Bryan Krause
Jan 29 at 16:30
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f123957%2fusing-well-established-abbreviations-for-new-concepts-in-the-same-field%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
This is not good practice : global search algorithms will find "results" that are not relevant... engineers have to use letters for things and use an upper case letter with descriptive subscripts to focus the meaning ie Cf (coefficient of friction), Cd (coefficient of drag), Cl (coefficient of lift, could be confused with the symbol for chlorine, but these are subscripts not lower case...
– Solar Mike
Jan 29 at 7:34
2
You should avoid using abbreviations entirely. Give your new concept a mnemonic name.
– JeffE
Jan 29 at 8:50
7
"You should avoid using abbreviations entirely." "– JeffE". *cough*
– David Richerby
Jan 29 at 10:34
5
@DavidRicherby I'm going to assume Jeff has taken his own advice, and from now on will pronounce that name in my head as "jeffy" rather than Jeff E. There's also a mod over at Biology and Psych/Neuro AliceD, who is indeed not Alice D. but intended to be read as an entire phrase.
– Bryan Krause
Jan 29 at 16:32