This site is currently titled "Signal Processing" with a URL of "dsp.stackexchange.com".

You are the domain experts. Does that ^^^ sound reasonable?

The name and URL was chosen because they seemed to be the most "industry-acceptable" terms that potential members would recognize at a glance.

I prefer clarity and conciseness over excessive precision when it comes to naming. Crowd-sourced names have a tendency to become overly pedantic as each group adds their own little bit. but we don't want to ACTIVELY turn away our core group, either.

We're looking for brevity and "industry appropriateness" to let people know the intent of this site… at a glance.

Please let us know if a change is needed; one that will be substantively better than what we have now.

  • $\begingroup$ dsp = Digital signal proccessing? $\endgroup$
    – genesis
    Commented Aug 16, 2011 at 20:53
  • $\begingroup$ So it seems like dsp is very much not liked based off of the amount of up-votes and comments below. How do we get this changed? I figured it would have been done before public beta started. $\endgroup$
    – Kellenjb
    Commented Sep 9, 2011 at 17:30

2 Answers 2


I was actually in the middle of writing a meta question.

Signal Processing is a good name as far as I am concerned; however, dsp.stackexchange.com is not so great. Here is why:

In this question I asked if this site was only for digital or if it was for both. Pretty much universally everyone said it was for both. By putting dsp (being short for digital signal processing) in the URL, people who are new will assume it will only be for digital.

signals.stackexchange.com is the first thing that came to mind, but I by no means support it as a perfect URL.

Update: http://signals.stackexchange.com now redirects to the primary URL, http://dsp.stackexchange.com.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yep, this was my immediate thought. SigProc maybe. Signals.SE maybe. $\endgroup$
    – jcolebrand
    Commented Aug 16, 2011 at 19:15
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ I agree. I say signals.se is better $\endgroup$
    – Phonon
    Commented Aug 16, 2011 at 19:15
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Ha, I edited my answer before I saw your guys comments, I added signals.se as an option as well. $\endgroup$
    – Kellenjb
    Commented Aug 16, 2011 at 19:16
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ dsp is OK, but I ♥ signals. $\endgroup$
    – nibot
    Commented Aug 17, 2011 at 4:15
  • $\begingroup$ I think with 'signals' you can cover more ground (i.e. signal statistics, encoding of random processes) -- and that is the problem as then we get overlapping fields with stats.se. -- anyway is like signals more! $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 29, 2011 at 13:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ +1 for signals.se $\endgroup$
    – datageist Mod
    Commented Dec 24, 2011 at 22:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Update: signals.stackexchange.com is now a working redirect. Sorry it took so long to implement, but now you can share that URL with your analog signal processing friends and they will feel welcome here! $\endgroup$
    – Laura
    Commented Mar 11, 2013 at 16:36

What about sampling?

Granted, it's only an aspect of signal processing, but it's about finding a term that those in the field will readily (if not immediately) identify with.

Just as the statistics site is called "Cross Validated"; cross-validation (as opposed to say true validation or holdout validation) is only one way to perform validation of statistics.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Isn't sampling just one component of signal and image processing? $\endgroup$
    – Grace Note StaffMod
    Commented Dec 23, 2011 at 19:02
  • $\begingroup$ @GraceNote Yes, update answer to reflect that and why I feel it would still be appropriate. $\endgroup$
    – casperOne
    Commented Dec 23, 2011 at 19:11

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .