Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Change Your Name

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 355 posts

Re: Change Your Name

#161

Post by just_had_coffee »

baddox wrote: post #144
beambot wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. My parents are typical web users. Fairly tech savvy, but not tech insiders. I recall telling them about bit.ly. It took a while to explain that it wasn't bitly.com, bit.ly.com, etc. They ended up just searching for it instead of typing in the domain name. Think of the added friction this causes... and as we all know, every added interaction detracts from the conversion funnel. Taken in aggregate, many sta…

Isn't that a slightly different point? You're talking about ability of a user to discover or find the site, not the user's perception of the strength of the business.

...but the point is that to some non-technical users a "new" TLD won't even look like a full URL.

Re: Change Your Name

#162

Post by jaredsohn »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #113
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was referring to search results not advertisements. You can pay one fee, like a domain TLD or AOL Keyword, and get that spot. With those advertisements you have to constantly put money in to stay at that spot.

Domain names are also a constant, on-going cost.

While there is an on-going cost (i.e. domain renewals), it is very small compared to the initial payment one might make to acquire a premiere domain.

Re: Change Your Name

#164

Post by baddox »

just_had_coffee wrote: post #161
baddox wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that a slightly different point? You're talking about ability of a user to discover or find the site, not the user's perception of the strength of the business.

...but the point is that to some non-technical users a "new" TLD won't even look like a full URL.

That is beambot's point, and it's valid, but it's different than the point in this essay.

Re: Change Your Name

#165

Post by rwallace »

beambot wrote: post #135
baddox wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds (unsurprisingly, of course) like the perspective of an investor or other tech industry insider. Notice the phrases like "it signals weakness" and "suggests you're a marginal company." Those don't seem like phrases most people are ever going to think about a company, and especially not based only on their domain name.

I disagree. My parents are typical web users. Fairly tech savvy, but not tech insiders. I recall telling them about bit.ly. It took a while to explain that it wasn't bitly.com, bit.ly.com, etc. They ended up just searching for it instead of typing in the domain name. Think of the added friction this causes... and as we all know, every added interaction detracts from the conversion funnel. Taken in aggregate, many sta…

Don't typical web users these days always search instead of typing in the domain name?

Re: Change Your Name

#166

Post by natch »

squiggy22 wrote: post #136
ThomPete wrote: post #13

Great names are made not found. I think Paul for once have it the wrong way around. If you become big enough and happen to have enough of a market you might need to .com name to optimize your numbers. If you happen to find a good name you can afford that you still think represents you and is .com you should most probably change your name. But for most people just like their logo it's it's not that important until you…

Couldn't agree more. Google, Yahoo, Twitter. Three global brands that aren't dictionary names, and don't have to be. You don't need a dictionary word .com to survive either.

All companies that have their .com, and have had since the beginning as far as I know.

Re: Change Your Name

#167

Post by molecule »

squiggy22 wrote: post #136
ThomPete wrote: post #13

Great names are made not found. I think Paul for once have it the wrong way around. If you become big enough and happen to have enough of a market you might need to .com name to optimize your numbers. If you happen to find a good name you can afford that you still think represents you and is .com you should most probably change your name. But for most people just like their logo it's it's not that important until you…

Couldn't agree more. Google, Yahoo, Twitter. Three global brands that aren't dictionary names, and don't have to be. You don't need a dictionary word .com to survive either.

'Yahoo' and 'twitter' actually are words that existed in the dictionary before the respective companies.

Re: Change Your Name

#168

Post by pbreit »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #52

I couldn't disagree more with this article and am kinda surprised Paul wrote about this. Domain names are transitioning into becoming useless. When you open any web browser or mobile phone and go to look for a company it does a search. The most relevant results come back at the top. This type of trend, as we abstract away from using TLDs, is only going to continue. Owning a .com isn't nearly as meaningful today as it…

The preponderance of the evidence suggests (proves?) you're wrong.

Re: Change Your Name

#169

Post by tajen »

squiggy22 wrote: post #136
ThomPete wrote: post #13

Great names are made not found. I think Paul for once have it the wrong way around. If you become big enough and happen to have enough of a market you might need to .com name to optimize your numbers. If you happen to find a good name you can afford that you still think represents you and is .com you should most probably change your name. But for most people just like their logo it's it's not that important until you…

Couldn't agree more. Google, Yahoo, Twitter. Three global brands that aren't dictionary names, and don't have to be. You don't need a dictionary word .com to survive either.

All combinations of 6 letters .com are taken. All 16k words of the dictionary are taken in English. It wasn't even the case 2 years ago. I wonder whether pg's impression that if is possible to get a .com is outdated.

Re: Change Your Name

#170

Post by loup-vaillant »

> The problem with not having the .com of your name is that it signals weakness.

Note to anyone who disagrees with Paul Graham on this one: he's not talking about the genuine importance of the domain name. He's talking about its perceived importance by important people —namely the investor community. That's the way it is with most status signals: they're not very important by themselves, but how they influence the people who have power over you is important.

Simply put, if the investor community believes that lacking the relevant .com name is a sign of weakness, then lacking such a name signals that weakness. As such, they will be less likely to invest, making your company weaker. It doesn't matter if they're right in the first place. Their belief is sufficient.

It's a self fulfilling prophecy: if investors believe you're weak, that belief can make you weak.

Post reply on HN