Dash Lambda said: It's kind'a pointless to try to force naming continuity between OLL and PLL. They're just different.

And the names the OP gave for the corner cases are pretty commonly accepted and make sense. H because the corners make two parallel lines, Pi because the corners make two parallel lines with a hat, U because the corners make the two endpoints and it's kind'a easy to visualize the 'U' shape, etc...

So, I respectfully, but entirely, disagree. Click to expand...

The problem with that is that it's just not efficient. We recognize cases by shapes and patterns, and the fewer patterns we need to process the faster we are. If we force ourselves to process two separate cases, it'll be slower than just seeing one shape.

That is, unless you're saying we actually should recognize the pattern like normal and use COLL recog if there are hidden corners, which is just something you develop anyway. Click to expand...

Dash Lambda said: While I love systematic naming conventions, I think your framework is a little too rigid to be practical. In the end, a string of letters (especially orientation-dependent) is just as bad as a number. There are a lot of OLL cases, so it's not like we can fit one to a letter like with PLL, so we just have to come up with good names (which we have for many of them, but not all). Click to expand...

-For 9-10: Those are "Kite" cases, and I think that name works great. They're mirrors, so I think it's perfectly reasonable to call them Kite-a and Kite-b. Click to expand...

-For 18-19: The names the wiki gives for those are "Crown" and "Bunny," but I don't really like those. I think they should both be called either "Bunny" or "Mickey" (the mouse, for obvious reasons), either being "Bunny-a" and "Bunny-b" or, since they're not mirrors, "Bunny-dot" and "Bunny-line," characterized by the row opposite the ears. Click to expand...

-For 31, 32, 43, 44: I think those should all be "P" cases, and they should be differentiated by "line" and "dot" as per the previous one and "a" and "b" for mirrors. So we have "P-dot" a and b and "P-line" a and b. Click to expand...

-For 47-50, 53, 54: I think those should all be "Angle," though I don't know how best to differentiate them. You can separate them into three sets of mirrors, and I'd personally call them "Long," "Short," and "L," characterized by the pattern on the sides, but I don't know how intuitive that is or how well it works for other people. Click to expand...

AlphaSheep said: I think using the corners only as the first categorising feature is a bad idea. The first visible feature is the shape on top, which people have already given names like lightning, L, line, etc. Then you can categorise these by the corner twist as you would look at that second. That's how most people seem to group the cases anyway. Click to expand...

I am the OP. I realize the current system makes sense, and that's why the first post had those naming conventions. I also think, however, that we shouldn't stagnate with what is commonly accepted if there is a potentially better alternative. I think that to an established cuber, suggested changes makes very little sense. To a new cuber, the fact that OLL and PLL have naming continuity is probably helpful.I really don't think you've thought about this at all. Please explain to me how to recognize an OLL case with at least 2 unsolved corners by looking only at the top pattern.If you're saying look at top pattern + front face, I'm saying that's inefficient (also you still can't recognize most cases). You don't need to look at any of the edge orientations, because you know edge orientation from just looking at the top pattern. If we count in terms of stickers, all you need to know are the 9 top stickers and one sticker each from 3 corners to recognize OLL.I respectfully disagree. You'll end up with at least 15-20 different names instead of an intuitively understandable 1-3 letter set.Which one is Kite-a, which one is Kite-b? More importantly, how do you enforce the distinction?Now you've hit the problem on the head: you don't like those. What if people don't like Bunny or Mickey? What if they want to call it V or Peace Sign?Here is another issue: why are you bothering with line and dot? What if you can't see the line or dot? Do you waste time rotating or AUFing, or do you just recognize by OCLL? Assuming you do do OCLL, even subconsciously, why not just do that all the time?Again, you claim that my system is rigid and impractical, but don't propose a good alternative. Honestly, using my system, I can probably write out all 57 OLL cases in about 5 minutes, without needing to consult a wiki or try to figure out which one I'm missing, and it will be immediately understandable to even a non-cuber so long as I show them the 7 OCLL pictures and the edge orientation idea. I really don't see how you would achieve anything remotely close to that with an arbitrary shape naming system.What I'm suggesting is that cases are grouped by OCLL because you can derive subsets from that. Instead of having OLL as one giant, menacing block of 57 algs, you can have OLL H, OLL Pi, etc. There is very little rhyme or reason as to the current sequence of OLL algs that flows well beyond a group of 2-4 algs.It also facilitates recognition for people coming from 2-look. If you only know all of the OLL U cases, for example, you can see if it's a U orient: if so, try to remember the alg, if not, just 2-look it.