Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

Tags:

... Part 2?
December 6, 2007 1:07 PM   Subscribe

Dr. Seuss 2.0 NYT's blogger, David Pogue, expounds on the un-creative Seussification of 2.0 website names. Entertaining and right-on... except that the Washington Post featured the very same article a week earlier! Ouch.
posted by adamms222 (49 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

 
poguewnd!
posted by Hat Maui at 1:20 PM on December 6, 2007 [2 favorites]


Well, it isn't "the very same article". It's the same concept, but it's not a plagiarism.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 1:28 PM on December 6, 2007


Looks like it's the same topic covered by two different writers. There's no crime in riffing on a subject, particularly since Pogue seems to have done some additional research and leveraged his piece around the Web 2.0 Name Generator toy. Not a whole lot of outrage here.
posted by ardgedee at 1:29 PM on December 6, 2007


They're both happy to write about how stupid the new website names are, but neither is willing to write that the President is openly lying for the second time in order to create a pretext for an optional war.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 1:33 PM on December 6, 2007 [3 favorites]


I used the "very same article" liberally. I guess the sarcasmo-meter is set on low today.
posted by adamms222 at 1:35 PM on December 6, 2007


Isn't that how so much media 'content' is generated these days? It's just whizzing round from YouTube to Digg to CNN to NYTimes and the Washington Post, and then back again.
posted by carter at 1:39 PM on December 6, 2007


In all fairness to Dr. Suess, he was much better at making up memorable names than any of the examples in any of these articles.

Sneetches. Grinch. Wocket.

MUCH better.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:41 PM on December 6, 2007


These startups think that these names will stick in our minds because they’re so offbeat, but they’re wrong. Actually, all those twentysomething entrepreneurs are ensuring that we won’t remember them. Those names all blend together into a Dr. Seuss 2.0 jumble.

Ha ha, check out Old Man Pogue, trying to blog! Sorry you can't understand our hip new web names, pops! Guess they're just too X-trEEmE for adults!

*guitar squeal*

*anthropomorphic character on skateboard*

*cream filling*
posted by Greg Nog at 1:46 PM on December 6, 2007 [11 favorites]


Not the same exact article, no. But damn they're close...
posted by inigo2 at 1:51 PM on December 6, 2007


Any Whosville who's who
Can begoogle a handle
For fruzzy and frumptular uses.
But their petals aren't Zuzu's
And can't hold a candle
To the spark of remarkable Seuss's.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 1:57 PM on December 6, 2007 [6 favorites]


They're both happy to write about how stupid the new website names are, but neither is willing to write that the President is openly lying for the second time in order to create a pretext for an optional war.

I'm equally appalled by Mr. Pogue's cowardly refusal to profile colorful West Virginia House candidates, discuss the ramifications of trading Lastings Milledge, and write capsule reviews of chick-lit novels.
posted by dyoneo at 1:57 PM on December 6, 2007 [1 favorite]


He could just slip it in. Like "The Apple TV is as useless as George Bush."
posted by smackfu at 2:07 PM on December 6, 2007 [1 favorite]


Anytime Mr Pogue writes a non-ipod, non-Apple, non-Steve hagiography, I for one am impressed.
posted by meehawl at 2:07 PM on December 6, 2007


Wait--are we allowed to criticize apple products? Please go check the FAQ.
posted by mecran01 at 2:14 PM on December 6, 2007


Pogue seems to just stop typing the second he loses wind: "And when you name your site Yambo or Roombee, that’s a lot less likely to happen. You’re stacking the deck against your own success. Okay, there, I'm done. Bye!!"
posted by hermitosis at 2:21 PM on December 6, 2007


As a professional namer, I appreciate the media's outpouring of indignation against bad "can't we just be Google too?" names. Even if it's the identical indignation.

The Post piece has a lot of thorough interviews and ground work. The Pogue piece is one step away from an Andy Rooney, "What's with all these names?" rant. (But I'm biased as my boss is quoted)

Apple doesn't need good naming. They have products that would sell no matter what you called them. They dare you to care about their products.

"It's not just a phone. It's something far more magical. Something that will change the way you live. It's (drumroll) iPhone!" If they didn't have iPod in their back pocket from a kiosk product, it would likely be the most boring thing they could name it with an i on the front as well.
posted by Gucky at 2:26 PM on December 6, 2007


Because no two journalists have ever covered the same topic. Ever.
posted by cmgonzalez at 2:38 PM on December 6, 2007


Isn't that how so much media 'content' is generated these days?

Clue: It always was, it just wasn't easy to check up on.
posted by dhartung at 2:54 PM on December 6, 2007


A rogue Roomba is going to roll into this guy's office and eat him alive.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 2:58 PM on December 6, 2007


Welcome to www.lorax.com (google cache)

Incredibly, fapper.com is taken. My plans for web porno domination are ruined!
posted by oncogenesis at 3:03 PM on December 6, 2007


I used the "very same article" liberally.

I don't see how that phrase lends itself to a range of interpretations. Either it's the very same article, or it isn't.
posted by jjg at 3:10 PM on December 6, 2007


I wonder if the two authors met up at a cocktail party the month before and joked about this. They are similar in the way that the points are the same, but the supporting details are independently developed.

I can't think of any good reason for an esteemed columnist to knowingly plagiarize another.
posted by hellslinger at 3:27 PM on December 6, 2007


Both articles ignore the idea of cross-linguistic pronunciation. You want something phonetically simple (maybe even baby-ish), so people all over the world can pronounce it.
posted by telstar at 3:30 PM on December 6, 2007 [1 favorite]


What about Fapr?
posted by Esoquo at 3:37 PM on December 6, 2007


Dr. Seuss would approve. He was into repeating the same words over and over.
posted by inconsequentialist at 3:47 PM on December 6, 2007


What about Fapr?

Taken, but you could get Fappr.org. Or Fapppr.com. Or Fap-tastic.com.

instant domain search is pretty sweet, btw.
posted by delmoi at 3:48 PM on December 6, 2007


> You want something phonetically simple (maybe even baby-ish), so people all over the world can pronounce it.

As of 6:45, unh.com doesn't appear to be taken. (Though unh.edu is.)
posted by jfuller at 3:48 PM on December 6, 2007


I haven't read either article yet, but it's obvious, isn't it, that the original and probably still dominant reason is that pretty much every single dictionary word or comprehensible two-word combination has long since been bought up as a domain name and priced out the proverbial wazoo.

It might have become a matter of willful kawaii-ification at this late date, but domain purchase would be why the grandaddy of the disemvoweled domain names, Flickr, dropped the 'e', for example, I'd assume. Stewart and Katrina are members here (or at least have dormant accounts, like everybody else in the world) -- I wonder if that actually was the case.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:54 PM on December 6, 2007


I guess we should give credit to Dr. Seuss for paving the way towards Web 2.0 domain names even before the internet was around. Now that's great foresight!
posted by jenniferwalker at 3:59 PM on December 6, 2007


I used the "very same article" liberally.

I don't see how that phrase lends itself to a range of interpretations. Either it's the very same article, or it isn't.

Lessee, there's "the very same article," "the very same article" "the very same article," "the very same article," or "the very same article," or you could get all James Shatner 'n shit and say "the... very... same... article, Bones."
posted by Floydd at 4:17 PM on December 6, 2007


telstar, thank you. wii are in agreement.
posted by unregistered_animagus at 4:18 PM on December 6, 2007


David Pogue is a hack. Back in the late 90s, when my wife and I owned 2 Macs, David Pogue was one of the Apple zealots who drove me from the platform. When my iMac would crash and the only thing that would reboot it would be to unplug it or (I shit you not) to plug a safety pin into a tiny dark hole behind the iMac, or when my wife's Powerbook suddenly died after only 18 months and was gonna cost $1000 to FIX, David Pogue would cheerily write articles for Mac magazines in such a Pollyanna-ish voice that seemed to claim that Macs were perfect machines, incapable of error or god forbid, any sort of design flaw.

So I grew to hate him, and bought my first PC. I've had 3 PCs since (Each of them still working!), and despite Windows frustrations (cuz I'm a realist), I enjoyed the experience much more than my late 90s experience with Apple.

That being said, I now have a MacBook Pro and will likely buy an iMac of some sort within the next year.

But I'll be damned if I'll read David Pogue's opinion on matters.

So yeah, he's a hack. The bastard!

/vent
posted by newfers at 4:39 PM on December 6, 2007


How is "Joost" considered a nonsense word (instead of a rather popular name) and how the hell does one pronounce "Apahcinc"?
posted by kittyprecious at 4:55 PM on December 6, 2007


Am I the only person who doesn't find Dr Seuss very entertaining?
posted by davidmsc at 5:15 PM on December 6, 2007


Am I the only person who doesn't find Dr Seuss very entertaining?

Shhh.... nobody tell him that the Seuss books are written for children!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:32 PM on December 6, 2007


Don't worry, davidmsc, I know many five year olds who get bored half-way through The Cat in the Hat. Not me though. That book rules.
posted by inconsequentialist at 5:48 PM on December 6, 2007


Doesn't Pogue have a MeFi account? True, his piece is not plagiarism, but it would definitely get booted from the Blue for being a double. He should know better. Banhammer time!

i kid, i kid
posted by chinston at 5:57 PM on December 6, 2007


Am I the only person who doesn't find Dr Seuss very entertaining?

I find them a bit of a slog myself. Too many long words.
posted by Neale at 6:57 PM on December 6, 2007


Too Many Daves
posted by neuron at 7:17 PM on December 6, 2007


Too Many Daves

Hmm, that's not the whole poem. I think this is the whole thing.
posted by neuron at 7:20 PM on December 6, 2007


Pshaw! Dr. Seuss. I'm with Lewis Caroll on the Web 2.0 naming conventions.
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"
He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
"And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
He chortled in his joy.
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
posted by ericb at 9:04 PM on December 6, 2007 [1 favorite]


ericb, I thought that exact thing. I just didn't remember too many funny sounding words or names in Seuss's work and I immediately thought of Jabberwocky. Then I looked up some Seussified names. The character and creature names on the page are pretty odd. I think Carroll and Seuss are head to head here.
posted by inconsequentialist at 9:32 PM on December 6, 2007


More wanton plagiarism, from just the other day!

Need a good domain name
Must be cheap, can't be lame
Something cool like flickr meebo
wikiyou mahalo beebo
Telephone without a t!
Digg but with a triple g!

posted by bicyclefish at 10:11 PM on December 6, 2007 [1 favorite]


From a comment on Pogue's post -

1. A site called ‘Who Represents‘ where you can find the name of the agent that represents a celebrity.
www.whorepresents.com
2. Experts Exchange, a knowledge base where programmers can exchange advice and views at
www.expertsexchange.com
3. Looking for a pen?
www.penisland.net
4. Need a therapist?
www.therapistfinder.com
5. Italian Power Generator company
www.powergenitalia.com
6. Mole Station Native Nursery, based in New South Wales:
www.molestationnursery.com
7. Computer software, etc
www.ipanywhere.com
8. The First Cumming Methodist Church. www.cummingfirst.com
9. Art designers:
www.speedofart.com
10. Want to vacation at Lake Tahoe?
www.gotahoe.com

Not sure what's odd about www.therapistfinder.com. I'm steering clear of the Mole Station nursery though....
posted by Nathanial Hörnblowér at 7:39 AM on December 7, 2007 [1 favorite]


Ahhh, never mind. If I ever need to find a rapist, I'll know where to look. Although I do know where to find an anal rapist.
posted by Nathanial Hörnblowér at 7:52 AM on December 7, 2007


Not sure what's odd about www.therapistfinder.com. I'm steering clear of the Mole Station nursery though....

Ask sean connery
posted by milestogo at 8:34 AM on December 7, 2007


Clue: It always was, it just wasn't easy to check up on.

*slaps forehead*
posted by carter at 8:44 AM on December 7, 2007


Amazingly, both articles (and all the posts so far) miss the real point for using these "nonsense" names. It isn't to be memorable (although a good name, real or made-up, will be). It is so that they will show up by themselves in search engine results. It is an SEO issue. I hate it when someone uses for a project name a word that exists in the dictionary - makes it more difficult to find with Google. Somebody should write an article about how dumb that is.
posted by spock at 9:21 AM on December 7, 2007


Don't know about that, spock - it might be a contributing factor but I think stavros nailed it.

Use the Carroll poem above as an example. In the first 4 lines, every single nonsense word except one is already a registered website. Of the registered, fully half are domain parking pages rather than actual sites. Better jump on toves.com soon before it also becomes a parking space.

Personally, I'd like to see every registered domain that does not contain actual content within 1 year to be returned to the registrar for resale. Domain squatters really suck.
posted by caution live frogs at 12:47 PM on December 7, 2007 [1 favorite]


« Older Are You Not DEVO? You Are Mutato!...  |  Polaroid Composites... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments