12
\$\begingroup\$

Possible Duplicate:
Write an Elevator Pitch / Tagline

Note:

We are closing this domain naming thread. It is asking the entirely wrong question. See this blog post for details: Domain Names: Wrong Question

We're going to keep the name photo.stackexchange.com. But we WILL be setting up redirects from the more "popular" domains names (e.g. seasonedadvice.com to cooking.stackexchange.com, basicallymoney.com to money.stackexchange.com, and others as we go through the list).

New question: "Write and Elevator Pitch / Tagline!"

Click here to contribute ideas and vote.

[original message text below]

See Joel's advice:

Here’s some of my advice on domain names.

  1. Please don’t think that it’s necessary to use a domain name that reflects something going wrong. We picked the name “Stack Overflow” because it has some meaning for real programmers, not because it reflected a bug or problem. “Super User” is just as good a name. I get depressed by all these suggestions of “BurntChicken.com”, “LostYarmulke.com”, and “FallenArches.com” (for former owners of McDonald’s franchises, of course).
  2. Look for jargon that has meaning to the group of people you want to attract. Insider jargon is the duck call of insiders. Look at me! If I can say “contributory negligence,” I must be a real lawyer!
  3. .coms are a million times better than other TLDs.
  4. A domain name should be readable over the phone. Even on AT&T Wireless. Tricky spellings are always a bad idea. Similarly, dashes reek of desperation.
  5. Long names are not the end of the world. Using two or three words (or a couple of digits) is a good way to find available domains.
\$\endgroup\$
3
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Other betas are using top-7 as a tag for the items in the "top 7" post linked at the top of each meta page. \$\endgroup\$
    – John Rudy
    Commented Jul 15, 2010 at 21:15
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Other betas are also making these Community Wikis. \$\endgroup\$
    – NickAldwin
    Commented Jul 15, 2010 at 21:20
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ "Other betas..." didn't your mom warn you about following what all the other little betas are doing? But seriously: there's no separate rep here, so vote away as a poll; the editing feature of CW could be useful. \$\endgroup\$
    – user167
    Commented Jul 16, 2010 at 22:25

21 Answers 21

Reset to default
25
\$\begingroup\$

http://depthoffield.com/

http://DepthOfField.com/

http://DepthofField.com/

http://Depth.of.Field.com/ :)

parked

\$\endgroup\$
20
  • 8
    \$\begingroup\$ I love this for the double entendre: not only is it a photo term but it also suggests the detail in the q&a going on. \$\endgroup\$
    – Craig Walker
    Commented Jul 15, 2010 at 22:28
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ I really like applying the term, but – as a site name – "of" seems out of place. How would you write it? "Depth of Field" and "DepthofField.com"? "Depth Of Field" runs counter to some English style guides and just looks wrong to me. I keep seeing "off" as a word in "depthoffield.com", too. \$\endgroup\$
    – user167
    Commented Jul 16, 2010 at 22:29
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Craig: The hugely dominant pattern on the web is lowercase domains (I expanded my own answer to touch on this), and I think "depthoffield.com" would naturally become what people use instead of "DepthOfField.com". It just feels weird to call the site "Depth of Field" but change to "Of" in the domain. \$\endgroup\$
    – user167
    Commented Jul 17, 2010 at 6:04
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Roger: Even though the name "Depth of Field" is not "proper english", I do think it fits as a title. I don't think were looking for a fully, grammatically correct sentence like "In the Depth of Field" or anything like that...that just seems too lengthy for a site name. \$\endgroup\$
    – jrista
    Commented Jul 17, 2010 at 19:15
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @jrista: "Depth of Field" is fine; ".. Of .." is counter to conventional title casing. \$\endgroup\$
    – user167
    Commented Jul 17, 2010 at 22:12
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Roger: AAH! I misunderstood your original point. Totally agree! \$\endgroup\$
    – jrista
    Commented Jul 18, 2010 at 19:27
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I see this is very popular, but I strongly oppose it. Here's why: depth of field is fairly specialized jargon, and newbies won't know it, thus making the site less accessible to this (important IMO) audience. I believe there's tremendous value in putting the word "photo" in the domain name. \$\endgroup\$
    – Reid
    Commented Jul 22, 2010 at 17:16
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I know I'm biased since I've already suggested my own, but depthoffield looks like depth off ield to me, it's just not very readable. It reminds me too much of expert sexchange. I'm sure they would have loved to CamelCase it, but that's not the way people write things. \$\endgroup\$
    – tghw
    Commented Jul 22, 2010 at 19:18
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @Reid: it's tempting to go this way but it's not really necessary. Newbies will find the site through Google and understand what it is through the site's subtitle & FAQ. This is a pretty common practice in website naming today. For instance: "Flickr" is widely understood to be the big photo-sharing website, but it's name doesn't have anything to do with actual photography. (It's not even a real word). Another example: Google. Good content will make the name/brand work. \$\endgroup\$
    – Craig Walker
    Commented Jul 22, 2010 at 19:19
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ I like the sound of the term, but it doesn't look good in print. In (high quality) printing, ffi is printed as a ligature. That makes the domain look like depth-offield-dot-com. \$\endgroup\$
    – Jan Goyvaerts
    Commented Jul 24, 2010 at 4:06
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I like the pun, because I love puns, but I don't think it communicates expertise in photography. Obsession over depth of field, to me, definitely has connotations of "just bought my first DSLR" rather than "I'm a guru". \$\endgroup\$
    – ex-ms
    Commented Jul 25, 2010 at 0:52
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ This feels too broad and doesn't really ring of photography specifically. \$\endgroup\$
    – Ron Warholic
    Commented Jul 28, 2010 at 17:43
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Although I do like the term I don't encourage using it for the domain name due the readability and spelling issues already mentioned. Another negative point is that this name is three words long. Domain names consisting of one or two words just sound shorter and better when spoken out loud (compare hotmail.com vs depthoffield.com). \$\endgroup\$
    – Marc
    Commented Aug 4, 2010 at 14:31
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Feels gimmicky to me. \$\endgroup\$
    – eruditass
    Commented Sep 1, 2010 at 16:32
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Jan in true high-quality printing, the ligature would be f fi. \$\endgroup\$
    – Evan Krall
    Commented Sep 14, 2010 at 5:21
16
\$\begingroup\$

photostack.com

This domain is parked.

People know what kind of site it is right away, because:

  • photo says it's about photography
  • stack says it's a Stack Overflow Q&A site

Thus, this domain self-documents excellently.

I believe there's tremendous value in identifying the site at a Stack Overflow-type Q&A site, as it's a very high quality interface and people know what to expect and how it works.

\$\endgroup\$
6
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Interestingly, this actually seems to have taken hold with a few folks as an interim way of self-referencing the site. :) \$\endgroup\$
    – esm
    Commented Jul 22, 2010 at 18:59
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Association with Stack Overflow would only be useful if all the audience here would know it; and I don't think that is the case \$\endgroup\$
    – Rowland Shaw
    Commented Jul 24, 2010 at 12:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Rowland, why does all the audience need to know it to gain utility? There's lots of overlap between techies who know Stack Overflow and photographers. Stack Overflow is a great brand. Let's leverage it. \$\endgroup\$
    – Reid
    Commented Jul 24, 2010 at 17:34
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ I like the fact that this specifically calls out photography as opposed to the answers that are generically optical terms (depth-of-field and viewfinder). Additionally this reads well without hyphenation and is already the natural shortened version of the url: photo.stackexchange.com \$\endgroup\$
    – Ron Warholic
    Commented Jul 28, 2010 at 17:45
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Beyond the connection to stackoverflow/stackexchange, there is the idea of a stack of prints, which I feel works well. \$\endgroup\$
    – chills42 Mod
    Commented Sep 13, 2010 at 14:52
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I think photostack.com is the pick of the crop. \$\endgroup\$
    – Nick Bedford
    Commented Sep 14, 2010 at 0:14
13
\$\begingroup\$

www.viewfinder.com

We want to use this site to find (or give) information (views) on photography.

It's currently parked on a generic search engine page. It's likely that it can be purchased, but probably for a price.

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ Only seems to be parked with a redirect to a search/ad page. No real content though, so could possibly be purchasable. \$\endgroup\$
    – Simon P Stevens
    Commented Jul 18, 2010 at 20:24
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ It could suggest that it is a good sight for discussion of subjective issues. While there is some of that, we don't want to be seen that way. \$\endgroup\$
    – Hamish Downer
    Commented Aug 24, 2010 at 17:32
  • \$\begingroup\$ Well, it's less subjective than DOF/bokeh in my opinion. \$\endgroup\$
    – Karel
    Commented Sep 13, 2010 at 18:53
9
\$\begingroup\$

PhotoQnA.com

I own it and was using it for a StackExchange, back when mere mortals had access. But now we're getting cut off, and photo.se is going to dominate the market. Might as well put it to good use.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I was on photoqna, and would love to see it be this. \$\endgroup\$
    – John Rudy
    Commented Jul 15, 2010 at 21:15
5
\$\begingroup\$

f8.com

which is currently taken, though.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ I like it. A lot of common f-stops could be substituted for 8. \$\endgroup\$
    – Reid
    Commented Jul 24, 2010 at 17:38
1
\$\begingroup\$

TackSharp.com

parked

\$\endgroup\$
1
\$\begingroup\$

Focused Advice

FocusedAdvice.com

Available.

Inspired by Food and Cooking's Seasoned Advice.

\$\endgroup\$
0
\$\begingroup\$

FStopZero.com

Domain status: Taken, but seems to be only parked.

To quote Joel: "If it’s available for a reasonable amount of money...we may even be able to buy it."

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Mathematically impossible from the definition of the f-stop. ;-) \$\endgroup\$
    – ex-ms
    Commented Jul 25, 2010 at 0:54
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Matt: That's the point, although not many seem to like it. \$\endgroup\$
    – Simon P Stevens
    Commented Jul 26, 2010 at 8:53
-1
\$\begingroup\$

varyingfocus.com

Its not great, but its something, and currently available

\$\endgroup\$
-1
\$\begingroup\$

DarkroomQuestions.com

A little dated in the era of digital photography

\$\endgroup\$
4
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Kind of reminded me of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_room_%28sexuality%29 \$\endgroup\$
    – che
    Commented Jul 15, 2010 at 20:43
  • \$\begingroup\$ reminded me of the former darkroom.stackexchange.com \$\endgroup\$
    – Rowland Shaw
    Commented Jul 15, 2010 at 21:02
  • \$\begingroup\$ Hopefully our attempt will not end up like that. \$\endgroup\$
    – che
    Commented Jul 15, 2010 at 21:10
  • \$\begingroup\$ Seems darkroom.stackexchange now redirects here anyway \$\endgroup\$
    – Rowland Shaw
    Commented Jul 22, 2010 at 21:10
-1
\$\begingroup\$

filmoverexposure.com

\$\endgroup\$
-1
\$\begingroup\$

I have http://photographr.info for a previous SE site. It doesn't match Joel's rules, but adding here for completeness, and on the off-chance that people like it.

\$\endgroup\$
-2
\$\begingroup\$

Photo Complete

PhotoComplete.com

For Sale, very reasonable.

\$\endgroup\$
-2
\$\begingroup\$

BetterExposure.com

  • Questions reach more people
  • Better quality answers
  • Increase the chances that your photos are exposed correctly ;)
\$\endgroup\$
-2
\$\begingroup\$

Meta: domain should somehow invoke the Stack Overflow brand.

I believe there's tremendous value in identifying the site at a Stack Overflow-type Q&A site, as it's a very high quality interface and people know what to expect and how it works.

(Some text duplicated from my other answer, but I believe the point is general.)

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Probably worth reading the blog post linked in the question -- one pertinent quote "American audiences, generally, don’t trust series. They tend to believe that they want the best baking book, period, not whatever baking book comes in yellow. When they see a shelf full of yellow dummy books, they mostly say, “yeah, a bunch of second-best books.”". For the record, I'd say it's not just American Audiences \$\endgroup\$
    – Rowland Shaw
    Commented Jul 24, 2010 at 12:45
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Rowland, while that may be true in general, Stack Overflow is a powerful and very highly regarded brand. Let's leverage that value. An FWIW, I think the blog post uses a poor example: of course people are skeptical of For Dummies books. There are zillions of them; you could almost consider them shovelware. What we have in Stack Overflow is a small, highly regarded brand. Additionally, an subtle invoking of the brand is different than calling it photos.stackoverflow.com. \$\endgroup\$
    – Reid
    Commented Jul 24, 2010 at 17:37
-2
\$\begingroup\$

fotostack.com

A variation on photostack.com. Harder to read over the phone, but funny spelling makes us more Web 2.0-ey. ;)

This domain appears to be owned by an individual and not used for anything interesting (has default web page from new server install).

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I prefer the correct spelling much more \$\endgroup\$
    – Jared Updike
    Commented Jul 22, 2010 at 23:21
-3
\$\begingroup\$

MaxDOF.com

(available - surprising!)

Or (all available):

  • MaximumDOF.com
  • MaxDepthOfField.com
  • MaximumDepthOfField.com
\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'd avoid "DOF" as an acronym. Prefixing "Max" (or "Maximum") to "Depth of Field" makes it too long. \$\endgroup\$
    – user167
    Commented Jul 17, 2010 at 5:50
-3
\$\begingroup\$

Meta: domain should contain the word photo.

Reasoning: it's self-documenting and abundantly clear what the subject matter is. Puns and jargon make the domain less accessible.

\$\endgroup\$
-5
\$\begingroup\$

shootthem.com - available

\$\endgroup\$
1
-6
\$\begingroup\$

SayEnhance.com

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Too much emphasis on editing/manipulation, seems to veer off photography-specific. \$\endgroup\$
    – user167
    Commented Jul 17, 2010 at 2:19
  • \$\begingroup\$ And to add to Roger's comment, there has been very little on editing/manipulation so far... \$\endgroup\$
    – Rowland Shaw
    Commented Jul 29, 2010 at 18:27
-9
\$\begingroup\$

PhotoAnswerZ.com

I own the domain: http://www.photoanswerz.com/ It was supposed to be similar site as photo.stackexchange.com but Joel and Jeff killed that dream :)

I am willing to give this domain to the community if you like it.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Kinda fails the "can be read out over a phone line" test \$\endgroup\$
    – Rowland Shaw
    Commented Jul 16, 2010 at 8:49

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .