Jim Kukral - Latest Comments in What’s In A Name? Web 2.0 Domain Naming Disasters

Re: What’s In A Name? Web 2.0 Domain Naming Disasters

Dakbid Directory — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:34:44 -0000

I have found a good web 2.0 domain thats already memorable

Re: What’s In A Name? Web 2.0 Domain Naming Disasters

BriskShare Link Directory — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:34:10 -0000

You can get a web 2.0 domain thats easy to remember. I don't know why people aren't doing it

Re: What’s In A Name? Web 2.0 Domain Naming Disasters

Raymond Loesch — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:39:43 -0000

I would have to agree with you when coming up with ideas for naming my blog I decided that just using my name was good enough. If you write well and keep your reader or user interested in what you are saying or selling they will come back and remember your site name what ever it is.

Re: What’s In A Name? Web 2.0 Domain Naming Disasters

Sam Harrelson — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:53:47 -0000

No worries, RO. I just have a thing for truthiness.

Re: What’s In A Name? Web 2.0 Domain Naming Disasters

Rowan Price — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:48:13 -0000

You got me, Sam, Google is a made up word. But it does evoke googol, just like kleenex evokes clean.

With my fact-checking skills, I should get a job at the Times!

Re: What’s In A Name? Web 2.0 Domain Naming Disasters

Sam Harrelson — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:14:41 -0000

Actually, Google is a made up (and mis-spelled) name. The intention was "googol."

http://graphics.stanford.ed...

Re: What’s In A Name? Web 2.0 Domain Naming Disasters

Rowan Price — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:35:07 -0000

Yeah...there's something about the 'oddball' established brands that is pleasing, or hints of meaning:

-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.

Re: What’s In A Name? Web 2.0 Domain Naming Disasters

Sam Harrelson — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 10:13:04 -0000

Not to mention crazy names like "Google" or "Yahoo" or "Pepsi."

Re: What’s In A Name? Web 2.0 Domain Naming Disasters

Jim Kukral — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 01:12:02 -0000

Zac, yeah, I agree. But I was thinking about it some more, and you know, "Kodak" probably sounded pretty silly way back when?

Re: What’s In A Name? Web 2.0 Domain Naming Disasters

Leather Sectionals — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 00:09:07 -0000

'Gasus' sounds very much like it has something to do with flatulence, 'Goowy' sounds like someone with the lisp trying to say groovy. There is something silly not clever about all those names you mentioned above. Definitely not memorable.

Re: What’s In A Name? Web 2.0 Domain Naming Disasters

Zac Johnson — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:15:14 -0000

It's almost come to the point where you need to make up new words or site names to establish a new or unique business. Since many of the new 2.0 startups are new and don't have the massive cash to spend it on a (already owned) domain name, its easier for them to think hard and make something new and weird.

Re: What’s In A Name? Web 2.0 Domain Naming Disasters

Jim Kukral — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:50:34 -0000

You're overreacting Sam I think. The guy's point does make sense.

Re: What’s In A Name? Web 2.0 Domain Naming Disasters

Sam Harrelson — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:25:43 -0000

Um... Fark?

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.