Confusion with OCLL, COLL, OLL-C etc.

[vm70]

The acronyms people make for these algorithm sets are so confusing. Not only that, there are also different ways to write the same algorithm set!

Orientation of the Edges of the Last Layer: OLL-E = OELL = EOLL
Orientation of the Corners of the Last Layer: OLL-C = OCLL ≠ COLL

COLL, for reference, is Corners and Orientation of the Last Layer.

Here's a quick reference of some of the other sets that have "last layer" in them:
OLL: Orientation of the Last Layer
PLL: Permutation of the Last Layer
ELL: Edges of the Last Layer
C*LL, CxLL, CLL:Corners of the Last Layer (2x2 and/or 3x3)
CMLL: Corners of the Last Layer, Without M-Slice
CLLEF: Corners of the Last Layer, Edge Flips

Personally, I would like to change COLL to C+OLL, because it's corners "plus" orientation of the last layer.

 

[JustinTimeCuber]

meh, I like muh COLL so don't change the acronym eww

 

[xyzzy]

Personally, I would like to change COLL to C+OLL, because it's corners "plus" orientation of the last layer.

But that's called "OLLCP".

I agree that the current names suck, but at least they're understood by the community. A lot of the abbreviations used by the community mean more than what they literally mean; "2-look OLL" almost universally refers to doing EO followed by CO and "2-look PLL" almost universally refers to doing CP followed by EP. Whether you do corners first or the edges first is not something you can infer from just the modifier "2-look", but I don't see you mentioning that!

 

[GenTheSnail]

Personally, I would like to change COLL to C+OLL, because it's corners "plus" orientation of the last layer.

What
no
as @xyzzy said thats OLLCP

COLL stands for Corners Of the Last Layer.
It's literally just the corners of the last layer. The orientation part is part of solving the corners. tho it also preserves eo.

OCLL stands for Orientation of the Corners of the Last Layer.
That just orients the corners of the last layer, and also preserves eo.


But also, you have to consider that someone developed these alg sets and gave them names. Just because they aren't the best or the clearest names doesn't mean that you have the right to change them. If I invent a method and call it SFSCPetCOP (U/D-edgeS First then Slices seCond then PETrus style COrners :P), and its some weird edges-first method, that is the name that I, the inventor, has given it. You can't do anything about that, because it is my method.

But yeah, some of these names for alg sets aren't great.

 

[vm70]

What
no
as @xyzzy said thats OLLCP

If I invent a method and call it SFSCPetCOP (U/D-edgeS First then Slices seCond then PETrus style COrners :P), and its some weird edges-first method, that is the name that I, the inventor, has given it. You can't do anything about that, because it is my method.

I was going to make another comment here about renaming COLL again (this time it would be OCLLCP), but then I noticed that you replied. I see your point.

I agree that the current names suck, but at least they're understood by the community.

But yeah, some of these names for alg sets aren't great.

At least one person agrees with me that the algorithm set names are annoying, though.

 

[EmperorZant]

I always thought it would be cool refer to COLL as just CLL, by calling the methods 2CLL (2x2 CLL) and 3CLL (3x3 CLL), because COLL and CLL are the exact same thing (solving corners), just for different puzzles. Though it might seem weird because people would likely use "3CLL" for 4x4-7x7, and at a glance it looks more like you're solving 2/3 Corners of the Last Layer.

 

[biscuit]

I always thought it would be cool refer to COLL as just CLL, by calling the methods 2CLL (2x2 CLL) and 3CLL (3x3 CLL), because COLL and CLL are the exact same thing (solving corners), just for different puzzles. Though it might seem weird because people would likely use "3CLL" for 4x4-7x7, and at a glance it looks more like you're solving 2/3 Corners of the Last Layer.

Actually they're not. COLL preserves EO while CLL does not nesacarily preserve EO

 

[newtonbase]

At least the premise of the thread title has been proven.

 

[lucarubik]

At least one person agrees with me that the algorithm set names are annoying, though.

I agree, but ure not gonna change it on a speedsolving forum voting thing English is hard and ppl is gonna start to do it right
its actually horrible with the Zs and the Cs, its so bad i rather just dont if im looking for an alg ill open cubexplorer, 100%, mixing methods and sets of algs makes it soo confusing Corners of the Front Orientation Permutation get out!

 

[vm70]

I agree, but ure not gonna change it on a speedsolving forum voting thing English is hard and ppl is gonna start to do it right
its actually horrible with the Zs and the Cs, its so bad i rather just dont if im looking for an alg ill open cubexplorer, 100%, mixing methods and sets of algs makes it soo confusing Corners of the Front Orientation Permutation get out!

Yeah, I guess changing these things is kind of futile. Chris Olson tried to change the Ortega Method to Varasano and it somewhat worked, but people still refer to it as Ortega.