Web 2.0 Dadaist Poem

Why I hate Web 2.0 naming, in four stanzas:

Analyzr, Awesomr, Bashr, Befittr,
Beggr, Blogr, Blufr, Browsr,
Certifyr, Coastr, Colr, ColorPickr,
Depictr, DiggFiltr, Dingr, Dreamr.

Dumpr, Enablr, Empressr, Extortr,
Fastr, Favr, Featr, Flagr,
Flappr, Flickr, Frappr, Gabbr,
Geotagr, Gickr, Gpokr, Grazr.

Groupr, Gtalkr, Hackr, Isolatr,
Klingr, L8tr, Lablr, Localhostr,
Mappr, Movie Reviewr, Museumr, Musiclovr,
Nabbr, Ordr, Peppr, Phixr, Photobloggr.

Phrasr, Rel8r, Redlettr, Retrievr,
Similr, Squishr, Steakr, Stenographr,
Sonr, Soonr, Talkr, Tickr,
Transcribr, Translatr, VenturFundr, Wrickr.

tate_one.jpg
Tate Linden
Principal Consultant
Stokefire Consulting Group
703-778-9925

10 Responses to “Web 2.0 Dadaist Poem”

  1. Cute.
    I have also registered the-last-domain-with-the-word-poker.com but it was too Web 2.0 RC1.
    People seem to like gpokr.com better although I get lots of questions about what the g is for. Everyone seems to “get” the missing e (dang kids these days! with their fancy internet slang!)
    How bout a more educational post next time for us techie types that can’t spell.
    fo shizzle!
    PWN3D!

  2. Tate Linden says:

    Too true about the “g”, Ryan. Is it “Gee-poker” or “Guh-Poker?” Or perhaps it is like “Gnu” and the G is silent…
    I know you techies can spell, by the way. That’s why all the descriptive web names have been taken.
    Glad to have you as part of the poem. At some point I’ll write a post about spelling. In fact I’ve probably already done it at some point.
    Thanks for stopping in.

  3. Well, yeah, but blufr is… you know… cool!

  4. Tate Linden says:

    True… blufr is cool. But what happens when Web 2.0 stops being cool? (If that hasn’t already happened?)

  5. I think slang is bigger than web 2.0 Tate.

  6. Tate Linden says:

    Fo-shizzle. Slang is groovy, but the hep cats dig that once coolness ejects from the joint… well… remember when all the other Mike Jacksons were making everyone call them Michael?
    Slang ages just as fast as coolness does. They’re interrelated.
    IMHO of course.

  7. I think you’ve proven my point through your comment montage of slang. You’ve shown its been around at least as long as the 1960s. I think web 2.0 is only a couple years old. Slang is bigger than Web 2.0
    I see where you’re coming from and its sound bitter to me. Whats wrong with being cool? Whats wrong with slang? Oh, it ages… wait, no it doesn’t, people that use slang and try to be cool age, and then stagnate because they get tired. Vibrant energetic people change things about their lives all the time and keep things fresh and exciting.
    I’m saying change is good. Slang is good because its a change from everyday language. Coolness is good because it changes quite often. Web 2.0 is good because it actually is a good change from the old dead web.
    Proof of its worth is that so many businesses revolve around coolness(fashion and music). No?
    You’re coming from the perspective of branding something that will last forever and are picking on web 2.0 companies because they obviously won’t. Good call. Thats like saying big round sunglasses won’t last even though they’re selling like crazy. Of course they won’t. gpokr is not going to be the next Microsoft.
    Here’s my latest addition to domain slang pool: kdice.com. Confused? Out of 10,000 uniques today not one cared what the k was for.

  8. Tate Linden says:

    I agree with quite a few of your points, Ryan… but I also have a different view of things. I’m on the outside… Uncool.
    I think I wasn’t clear on my points previously.
    Coolness moves on, as does slang. I was using “Hep” to indicate that it wasn’t cool anymore… but perhaps coolness has come back around again and now “hep” is so uncool as to be deemed the ultimate in coolness. Sorta like how everyone now seems to love geeks, Atari, and binary now, but there were about 20 years where no one wanted to admit they had anything to do with them.
    I’m pretty sure that I’ve never said you can’t have a name that tries to be cool. I’ve also never said that you can’t have a copy-cat name. I probably have said that both are likely to make like difficult for a company that uses them at some point down the road.
    I too agree that change can be good (though it isn’t always.) Being different is more often good. The problem with change for a company is that if a company is constantly changing it leaves nothing for the consumer to latch on to. A company that is different, however, has a huge handhold onto which its customer base can grab.
    I have written that if you have a product that is trying to take advantage of a trend then by all means use a name that latches onto that trend. I still feel this is true. It is short-sighted, but then the business itself is going to be short-lived. The sunglasses you mention would be well served to have a cool name.
    There will be a problem that comes from these cool names though. In a couple years people will not want to use the glasses because they’ll be attached to a time in the past that people want to avoid association with. For a company or product that plans not to be around this doesn’t matter at all.
    …and for that matter, I would hope and expect that a company that wasn’t planning on being around for more than a year and wasn’t charging anything for its services would avoid the expense of hiring a person like me to name their firm.
    As for bitterness I certainly don’t feel bitter. I’m still not pleased that so many companies are copying the same name format (and some of them are trying to make a profit and stand the test of time) but by communicating with folks like you I get the sense that the message is being heard.
    In closing I have a candid question: Is it possible to have a formula for a cool name, or does the mere fact that there is a formula make it uncool? (I had been thinking that part of coolness was exclusivity – and now there’s a push-button coolness formula for names.)
    Whaddaya think?
    (Oh… and Kdice doesn’t fit into any Web 2.0 naming convention that I know of, so I’ve got nothing to add there… Maybe you’re starting the next trend?)



Subscribe to our newsletter »

Archives