Return to Answer

Regarding naming:

All names communities have come up with suck... this may be true, but it's because of the restrictions that were imposed on the community and not because of an inability of a community to execute.

I have a feeling that the real heart of the issue is that everyone thinks naming is hard. That's not completely true, the truth is finding a .com domain name for a matching good name is hard.

Other than naming, the rest of the arguments in the question can be ignored based on the justification given in my previous answer.

Since finding a .com domain naming for a matching site name is so hard, perhaps the community should come up with a good name and then consider which types of domain names they can get for that name. Two distinct things, not one.

Don't sacrifice the name, sacrifice the TLD or use an abbreviation:

For example a .org for some communities may work. A .net for some other communities may work. I think something like (Web Addict, webaddict.net) or (Web Geek, webgeek.org) is better than (Nothing to install, nothingtoinstall.com) and (WebApps, webapps.stackexchange.com).

A short form domain of the full name may also be acceptable for some sites. An example of this is my own company, our name is VisionWorks Solutions, and our domain for the past 6 years has been vwsolutions.com, it has served us well. Another example Hewlett-Packard -> hp.com, the site is known to most even know it is a short for for the full name.

In conclusion, split it up:

Perhaps the whole problem is tying domain name with naming together in one. We would then have the 7 essential questions of every public beta turn into 8.

• What should our name and domain be?
• What should our name be?
• What should our domain be?

Regarding naming:

All names communities have come up with suck... this may be true, but it's because of the restrictions that were imposed on the community and not because of an inability of a community to execute.

I have a feeling that the real heart of the issue is that everyone thinks naming is hard. That's not completely true, the truth is finding a .com domain name for a matching good name is hard.

Other than naming, the rest of the arguments in the question can be ignored based on the justification given in my previous answer.

Since finding a .com domain naming for a matching site name is so hard, perhaps the community should come up with a good name and then consider which types of domain names they can get for that name. Two distinct things, not one.

Don't sacrifice the name, sacrifice the TLD or use an abbreviation:

For example a .org for some communities may work. A .net for some other communities may work. I think something like (Web Addict, webaddict.net) or (Web Geek, webgeek.org) is better than (Nothing to install, nothingtoinstall.com) and (WebApps, webapps.stackexchange.com).

A short form domain of the full name may also be acceptable for some sites. An example of this is my own company, our name is VisionWorks Solutions, and our domain for the past 6 years has been vwsolutions.com, it has served us well. Another example Hewlett-Packard -> hp.com, the site is known to most even know it is a short for for the full name.

In conclusion, split it up:

Perhaps the whole problem is tying domain name with naming together in one. We would then have the 7 essential questions of every public beta turn into 8.

• What should our name and domain be?
• What should our name be?
• What should our domain be?

Regarding naming:

All names communities have come up with suck... this may be true, but it's because of the restrictions that were imposed on the community and not because of an inability of a community to execute.

I have a feeling that the real heart of the issue is that everyone thinks naming is hard. That's not completely true, the truth is finding a .com domain name for a matching good name is hard.

Other than naming, the rest of the arguments in the question can be ignored based on the justification given in my previous answer.

Since finding a .com domain naming for a matching site name is so hard, perhaps the community should come up with a good name and then consider which types of domain names they can get for that name. Two distinct things, not one.

Don't sacrifice the name, sacrifice the TLD or use an abbreviation:

For example a .org for some communities may work. A .net for some other communities may work. I think something like Web Addict and webaddict.net is better than nothingtoinstall.com and webapps.stackexchange.com.

A short form domain of the full name may also be acceptable for some sites. An example of this is my own company, our name is VisionWorks Solutions, and our domain for the past 6 years has been vwsolutions.com, it has served us well. Another example Hewlett-Packard -> hp.com, the site is known to most even know it is a short for for the full name.

In conclusion, split it up:

Perhaps the whole problem is tying domain name with naming together in one. We would then have the 7 essential questions of every public beta turn into 8.

• What should our name and domain be?
• What should our name be?
• What should our domain be?

Regarding naming:

All names communities have come up with suck... this may be true, but it's because of the restrictions that were imposed on the community and not because of an inability of a community to execute.

I have a feeling that the real heart of the issue is that everyone thinks naming is hard. That's not completely true, the truth is finding a .com domain name for a matching good name is hard.

Other than naming, the rest of the arguments in the question can be ignored based on the justification given in my previous answer.

Since finding a .com domain naming for a matching site name is so hard, perhaps the community should come up with a good name and then consider which types of domain names they can get for that name. Two distinct things, not one.

Don't sacrifice the name, sacrifice the TLD or use an abbreviation:

For example a .org for some communities may work. A .net for some other communities may work. I think something like (Web Addict, webaddict.net) or (Web Geek, webgeek.org) is better than (Nothing to install, nothingtoinstall.com) and (WebApps, webapps.stackexchange.com).

A short form domain of the full name may also be acceptable for some sites. An example of this is my own company, our name is VisionWorks Solutions, and our domain for the past 6 years has been vwsolutions.com, it has served us well. Another example Hewlett-Packard -> hp.com, the site is known to most even know it is a short for for the full name.

In conclusion, split it up:

Perhaps the whole problem is tying domain name with naming together in one. We would then have the 7 essential questions of every public beta turn into 8.

• What should our name and domain be?
• What should our name be?
• What should our domain be?

All names communities have come up with suck... this may be true, but it's because of the restrictions that were imposed on the community and not because of an inability of a community to execute.

I have a feeling that the real heart of the issue is that everyone thinks naming is hard. That's not completely true, the truth is finding a .com domain name for a matching good name is hard.

The rest of the arguments in the question can be ignored based on the justification given in my previous answer.

Since naming is so hard perhaps the community should come up with a good name and then consider which types of domain names they can get for that name. Two distinct things, not one.

Don't sacrifice the name, sacrifice the domain name.

For example a .org for some communities may work. A .net for some other communities may work. I think something like Web Addict and webaddict.net is better than nothingtoinstall.com and webapps.stackexchange.com.

A short form domain of the full name may also be acceptable for some sites. An example of this is my own company, our name is VisionWorks Solutions, and our domain for the past 6 years has been vwsolutions.com, it has served us well. Another example Hewlett-Packard -> hp.com, the site is known to most even know it is a short for for the full name.

Perhaps the whole problem is tying domain name with naming together in one. We would then have the 7 essential questions of every public beta turn into 8.

• What should our name and domain be?
• What should our name be?
• What should our domain be?

Regarding naming:

All names communities have come up with suck... this may be true, but it's because of the restrictions that were imposed on the community and not because of an inability of a community to execute.

I have a feeling that the real heart of the issue is that everyone thinks naming is hard. That's not completely true, the truth is finding a .com domain name for a matching good name is hard.

Other than naming, the rest of the arguments in the question can be ignored based on the justification given in my previous answer.

Since finding a .com domain naming for a matching site name is so hard, perhaps the community should come up with a good name and then consider which types of domain names they can get for that name. Two distinct things, not one.

Don't sacrifice the name, sacrifice the TLD or use an abbreviation:

For example a .org for some communities may work. A .net for some other communities may work. I think something like Web Addict and webaddict.net is better than nothingtoinstall.com and webapps.stackexchange.com.

A short form domain of the full name may also be acceptable for some sites. An example of this is my own company, our name is VisionWorks Solutions, and our domain for the past 6 years has been vwsolutions.com, it has served us well. Another example Hewlett-Packard -> hp.com, the site is known to most even know it is a short for for the full name.

In conclusion, split it up:

Perhaps the whole problem is tying domain name with naming together in one. We would then have the 7 essential questions of every public beta turn into 8.

• What should our name and domain be?
• What should our name be?
• What should our domain be?