Curt Hibbs wrote:
> 
> I can't quite figure out where you stand from these comments.
> 
> I think that despite the fact that a common "look" would not solve the
> problem determining a site's reliability, it *will* (as you said) reduce
> confusion. For me, this is a big issue and should be done.


Generally speaking, a common look can reduce confusion, to some degree. 
   For example, if I'm clicking around a site, and the style suddenly 
changes, I may think I've gone to another site.

If a number if sites have a similar look and feel, I will probably 
assume the have some bond.  But there is nothing to stop anyone from 
exploiting this conferred trust by making a site that looks just like an 
"official" Ruby site.

(If there was a registered trade mark or service mark for Ruby(tm) and 
"The Ruby Look", then perhaps one could bring a lawsuit.  I consider 
that unlikely.)


> 
> Improving the reliability, content, and organization of various sites is
> also important and should be done.

Agreed, and, as you noted, a separate matter from any notions of making 
selected sites look or be "official."

Improving the reliability, content, and organization requires a good 
understanding of who is using the site and what they come to accomplish, 
and providing for this in such a way that the care and feeding of the 
site is not an undue burden.

Most of the discussion so far seems more focus on branding and personal 
color preferences than on any sort of information architecture.

Trust and authority are certainly elements of a user's concerns, but I'm 
skeptical that these are among the main issues, for most users, with the 
current set of Ruby sites.


James