<story><title>Paul Graham&apos;s long-lost 2006 Infogami essay, &quot;Startup Names&quot;</title><url>http://messymatters.com/pgnames.html</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>dirtyaura</author><text>If you are interested in evaluating names, I recommend reading The Igor Naming Guide: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.igorinternational.com/process/igor-naming-guide.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.igorinternational.com/process/igor-naming-guide.p...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;They have quite good categorization of names that helps you think about different names: functional/descriptive, invented, experiential, evocative. 
Specifically, they use term &apos;experiential name&apos; for names that hint or evoke an idea what the product does, but reserve term &apos;evocative&apos; for positioning. Virgin is a prime example of evocative name, while e.g. Infoseek is a experiential name.&lt;p&gt;A quote from the manual:&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;One important way that evocative names differ from others is that they evoke the positioning of a company or product, rather than describing a function or a direct 
experience&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;The guide also highlights how there can be initial resistance for great (evocative) names. For example, consider Virgin Airlines:&lt;p&gt;&quot;But public wants airlines to be experienced, safe and professional!&quot; or&lt;p&gt;&quot;Religious people will be offended&quot;&lt;p&gt;Or Caterpillar:&lt;p&gt;&quot;Tiny, creepy-crawly bug&quot;,&lt;p&gt;&quot;Not macho enough – easy to squash&quot;,&lt;p&gt;&quot;Why not &quot;bull&quot; or &quot;workhorse&quot; &quot;?&lt;p&gt;It&apos;s a great read.</text></comment>
<story><title>Paul Graham&apos;s long-lost 2006 Infogami essay, &quot;Startup Names&quot;</title><url>http://messymatters.com/pgnames.html</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>InfinityX0</author><text>One of the things discussed here that isn&apos;t as frankly discussed in detail is the diminishing value of a one-word name. A startup such as &quot;color&quot; has little value in selecting such a name, at least comparative to the value the name has itself. As Graham discusses, a little iteration, many beers and constant thinking could probably create a name that would only be &lt;i&gt;slightly&lt;/i&gt; less effective.&lt;p&gt;Wufoo is such an example. Both are short but with both, I literally have no idea what they do at first mention. But they&apos;re both memorable and fit generally good brand rules - while Wufoo, undoubtedly, was a much cheaper domain.&lt;p&gt;But the one-word benefit is strong, and tangible, with a domain such as &quot;shirts.com&quot;. Here, there is real and significant SEO benefit, as well as potential branding benefit when posited correctly. When not attached to the physical product - or at least without significant &quot;what the hell this does&quot; connotation - the value of a one-word domain is really not that significant comparative to the perceived mass market value of many of these domains.</text></comment>