Over here in these islands of the North Atlantic, we tend to use “Joe Bloggs” to represent an anonymous individual. I know that “John Doe” is common in the US, but is “Joe Bloggs” recognised at all?
never heard of joe bloggs. Joe six-pack yes, but bloggs?
I always think of John Doe as an unknown dead person (and Jane Doe) but of Joe Bloggs as a live person.
I’m editing a software manual, and we’ve used “Joe Bloggs” as the generic username all the way through. However, it’s occurred to me that this won’t mean “generic” to any of our US market. If “John Doe” is a dead person, this might not be appropriate either. Any other suggestions?
It you’re talking about a computer user, try Joe User and Jane User, the readers should be able to figure that out.
I think that people will figure it out whether you use Joe Bloggs or Roger Wilco or Namey McGeneric.
It’s interesting to note that Princeton Review uses the name “Joe Bloggs.” Princeton Review is a company that publishes study guides for the SAT test (a test that many American universities use in admissions decisions) and other similar tests. They talk about the “Joe Bloggs” answers on SAT multiple-choice questions. The “Joe Bloggs” answers are the wrong answers that an average person of middling intelligence will be drawn to because they try to do the question quickly without reading it carefully.
In any case, the answer is that some Americans will recognize “Joe Bloggs” as being a standard name for an anonymous person, but most won’t. On the other hand, John Doe is typically a name from legal documents, although it’s occasionally used for other purposes. (I don’t think of it as being a name for a dead person.) I’m not sure what name would work best. John Q. Public, perhaps? That’s not the right flavor for computer documentation either. John Q. Programmer, maybe?
I think I’ll try kferr’s suggestion. Thanks for the advice.
Maybe it’s just me, but I always think of Bloggs as a Fred rather than a Joe. Perhaps they’re brothers?
If I’m making stuff up for example purposes, I try to use obviously fake references. That way, I can just scan the database for them afterwards - I know that records involving “Jeremiah Belchtrouser” or “Arbuthnot Clenchwomble” are fakes.
Hmm. I know that in the US College Board’s SAT preparation literature that they sell, they make frequent reference to Joe Bloggs as a tool for doing the SAT - i.e. Joe Bloggs is supposed to be a totally average student who will get the easy questions right, the hard questions wrong, and the medium ones 50/50. By reading a test as Joe Bloggs, you can see what the first reaction is, and then use that to select your answer or eliminate options.
LC
In the U.S. legal system, “John Doe” is one of many terms used when filing a lawsuit to denominate an unknown individual (along with “Jane Doe,” “Richard Roe,” or simply “several unknown individuals”). It doesn’t have any connotation as to whether the person is alive or dead. Probably, Peragau, your association of the name with dead people comes from cop shows, as when the police find a body they can’t identify it’ll be referred to as a “John Doe” until more information comes in.
–Cliffy, Esq.
Nah, you’re thinking of Keith.
What about John Q. Public?
Another American here who’s never heard of Joe (or Fred, or Keith) Bloggs. If you don’t want to use John Doe, other commonly used everyman names are:
John Smith
Joe Blow
Hi Opal
Joe Sixpack (blue collar connotation)
I wrote:
> It’s interesting to note that Princeton Review uses the
> name “Joe Bloggs.”
Lucki Chaarms wrote:
> I know that in the US College Board’s SAT preparation literature
> that they sell, they make frequent reference to Joe Bloggs as a
> tool for doing the SAT . . .
I wrote:
> On the other hand, John Doe is typically a name from legal
> documents . . .
Cliffy wrote:
> In the U.S. legal system, “John Doe” is one of many terms used
> when filing a lawsuit to denominate an unknown individual . . .
I wrote:
> John Q. Public, perhaps?
jehovah68 wrote:
> What about John Q. Public?
I appear to be invisible. Hey, jjimm, why don’t you use “Wendell Wagner” as a generic name for anonymous people who get ignored?
Did someone say something?
I know! Use “Wendell Wagner!”
fnord
RR
We’re developing an online Government service and the html clickthrough features Joe Public. John Q must have been busy at an assertiveness training course with Wendell Wotzisname;).
Thanks Cliffy you’re probably right.
Jjimm for a historical slant on the thing you could use Tommy Atkins
No, Tommy Atkins is a generic soldier, not a generic person.