-
Website
http://www.jimkukral.com -
Original page
http://www.jimkukral.com/whats-in-a-name-web-20-domain-naming-disasters/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
RuthannDisotell
5 comments · 1 points
-
templestark
4 comments · 4 points
-
grantgriffiths
5 comments · 2 points
-
Lucretia (GeekMommy) Pruitt
5 comments · 16 points
-
lisamariemary
13 comments · 4 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
Making the most of your time at a TweetUp
1 week ago · 1 comment
-
Making the most of your time at a TweetUp
Fark has been around since 1999 (at least) and the name was intentionally stupid to poke fun at the trash articles that "mainstream media" (with their authoritative names like Time and Newsweek) were producing in order to get eyeballs.
Fark is as web2.0 as fax machines.
I'll take a company with a "web2.0" name any day over a tired and regurgitated piece from a major newspaper that doesn't even take the time to fact check.
-Google is an actual word, however obscure and nerdy, that implies massive -scale, as in content indexed
-Yahoo is an exclamation of joy
-Kleenex evokes "clean"
-Yoplait evokes yogurt
-Cheerios, cheerfulness or a greeting
-Pepsi evokes 'pep', as in rally
-Coca and Cola were both known plant names.
-Kodak, short for Kodachrome, from Autochrome, an early photography method
In comparison, these web 2.0 names are kinda silly, but I agree with Zac; the good domains are taken. I don't blame these companies for going with their zany names, however silly they sound. The only alternative is either a proper name (McRoger's), which sounds weird for an internet company, a 3 or 4 word generic name, and that sucks even worse (FreeCouponSharingSite.com versus Zixxo.com). Nice angle Zac; I think the Grey Lady missed that one. But give The Times credit for arranging all those names together, pretty funny and good linkbait.
http://graphics.stanford.edu/~dk/google_name_or...
With my fact-checking skills, I should get a job at the Times!