the difference between the lightning and the lightning bug

[devi]

Hello Livejournal - I know we haven't talked in a while (though I'm rubbing shoulders with many of you on Twitter and Facebook), but I am no longer capable of objectivity on this. As names for the website of a freelance proofreader/editor/occasional print designer, do any of these appeal to you? Or really not appeal? Boxes tickied are appreciated. Comments even more so.

[Poll #1540094]



I’ve been making a website for my freelance proofreading/editing/layout work – something that people can click on from my Daily Info ads, for example. It’s nearly done and I’m really pleased with it. But as ever, I’m making heavy weather of naming the damn thing. When I try to name something one of two things happens. I get all wound up about finding the exact right name, and the more I get like that the less likely it becomes that a good one will occur to me. Alternatively, I think of a name I like, fall in love with it and lose my objectivity, when in fact it’s not so great for the task in hand. (I'm fine at suggesting names for other people's things. It's when they're my own that it goes wrong.)

I wanted something that would convey the abstract text-wrangling I do as though it were tangible real-world work, because this is how it often feels in my head – like I’m rolling up my sleeves and tuning up an existing text like an engine, or hammering out a new one till it’s the right shape. I’ve always had a fascination with old printing presses and industrial machinery, and I wanted a name with a whiff of smoke and a smear of soot or grease to it. The design of the site features an image of rows of old metal type blocks.

wordworksweb.com: “The Word Works” was my working title. I liked the suggestion of a word factory and also the alternate meaning of words that worked as they should. But: there are practical address-related problems with this. The closest .com I can get to this is “wordworksweb.com”. I found this on stuckdomains.com, a website of domains which have recently become free. I briefly got excited about this and then started to realise there was a reason it was in the domain-name dumper.

I wanted an address which was the same as the actual name of the site, and I didn't want to refer to it as “Word Works Web”. If I was a stranger trying to find this site after being told about it in the pub or wherever, I’d probably try numerous variations on thewordworks.com and then maybe google it, if I hadn’t already given up at this stage. I would never remember the extraneous –web bit.

And it sucks from a search point of view: there’s a number of writers’ groups called Word Works out there, and a couple of Bible organisations, and wordworks.co.uk is the site of a freelance IT copywriter very like my own site. I can imagine people even thinking it was me, until they scrolled down as far as the dude’s name.

It's only really on the list because I'm wondering if you'll see the same problems with it as I do.

thewordforge.co.uk: this is... all right, but I’m not mad keen to get a .co.uk – all my sites are hosted together at Dreamhost, whom I love and am comfortable with, and they don’t do .co.uk , and if I wanted to host it with them I’d have lots of transfer faff. If I even can point a .co.uk domain at them. And if I didn’t, I’d have to learn the idiosyncrasies of a new hosting provider, and have a separate bill. Which may not be that big a deal, admittedly, but I guess the point is that I’m not excited enough about the name to make the faff seem worthwhile. Also, the .com version is quite similar to what I'm doing.

moltenwords.com: I think this sounds sort of awesome. I was thinking of hot-lead printing presses (Monotypes and Linotypes), and how printworkers would make type blocks as they needed them, melting the metal in a furnace and turning it into letters or lines in moulds, then melting them back down later. I also have a nice logo idea for this one.

But I wonder: does it convey fiery awesomeness or disorder – words melted down into a shapeless mess?

hotmetaltype.com: I like this for similar reasons to the above, but... I dunno. Would it sound cool to someone who doesn’t have my weird printing/typeface fascination?

burnishedwords.com: sort of an afterthought. I like the polished/shining implications of it.

Of course, there's always the other route: the dull-but-serviceable name made up of bits of my own name and the word "editing", and such. But a) it's dull, b) no bugger can spell my name, c) because my surname ends with "ne", a combination of that and "editing" is going to have "need it" in the middle. Hey, subliminal advertising! Not really.



Edit: I am now being tempted by 'grammarislove.com'. WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME

Comments

[bluedevi.livejournal.com]

This is brilliant stuff - you're bang on the money about the misleading literal image. I'd been feeling vaguely that this was a problem but you articulated it. Also the web-clueless printers - that made me laugh because it's so true.

I can see the abstract-name thing, but I've got fixated on finding a name made up of well-known, easily-spellable words. It's the "can it be shouted in someone's ear at a party?" factor.

Glad to help!

[concourse.livejournal.com]

I suppose it depends on where you expect to get the most business, in the short term and further future, and whether you want to be fresh-and-funky or sober-and-dependable. I'm raising it because I don't know, not because I'm trying to suggest that one is better, but if it's likely that once you've got the first few contacts through shouting in ears at a party and they pass on links to people by email/over coffee might you be embarrassed at something informally stylish instead of soberly professional? I guess it depends as well on whether you're selling yourself more as imaginative print designer or fastidious proof-reader/editor. If I was employing a proofreader I don't think I'd want someone imaginative or stylish!

Re: Glad to help!

[juliet]

whether you want to be fresh-and-funky or sober-and-dependable

I guess it depends as well on whether you're selling yourself more as imaginative print designer or fastidious proof-reader/editor.

Both of these are definitely worth thinking about! And similarly whether you want to work with clients who are likely to be attracted by each of those images. (A bit related to what hatmandu says below about how ppl who are put off by "hatmandu" can sod off anyway.) There's value in establishing which niche you want to fit in and occupying it, rather than looking for something that will appeal a bit to everyone. (Plus, if your mode of interacting with clients once they've contacted you doesn't fit the website style/image presented by the website, then that may cause problems; so best just to decide how you want to work and set things up accordingly.) I can go on about this at greater length if you like :)

Re: Glad to help!

[bluedevi.livejournal.com]

Please do! You make a good point about it not being a great idea to give a misleading impression of myself.

Re: Glad to help!

[juliet]

OK :) I think it's worth thinking about what you're trying to sell (which as you say elsewhere may in fact be >1 website), who you want to sell it to, who *you* are, and how you want to interact with your clients. You are (IMO) better off going with a design and name and so on that match yourself and what you want out of the transaction. If (for example) you try to portray yourself as Serious-Minded Weighty Person, but then when people actually work with you, you're more flexible & cheerful & laid-back than that, then the people who might like the flexible, cheerful, laid-back approach will have been scared off by the serious & weighty website; and the people who were attracted by the website won't be getting what they thought they were (and may either bow out of the process early or fret about it; either way, even if they get a good result, they're not likely to recommend you as strongly as someone who you fit better with).

(That example probably sucks, & I am not suggesting that you are not competent or serious! But hopefully you see what I mean.)

So that's the business side of the argument (sell what you're actually comfortable providing, and act congruently with that when promoting yourself). The other, more personal, side is that if you paint yourself into a particular image which you're not comfortable with, even if you manage to work inside that image with clients, you're not going to find it particularly fun. (And thus will do a less-good job and/or will stop doing it sooner because you're not enjoying it as much.) A bit like: I myself *could* doubtless go work in the City & do a perfectly decent job except for the bit where I would be TOPPLING CAPITALISM FROM WITHIN but the effort involved in working against my instincts would be huge & not worth it. That's an extreme example, but there's a similar argument with (e.g.) the sort of freelance writing I do: it's OK to nudge your style one way or the other a bit to fit a particular publication, but better by far to focus on finding publications where your natural style fits well.

So, yes. Does that make sense? I am fundamentally making an argument for BE YOURSELF as a basic maxim even in business :)

Re: Glad to help!

[bluedevi.livejournal.com]

I guess it depends as well on whether you're selling yourself more as imaginative print designer or fastidious proof-reader/editor

I think this is a really important issue, actually. The central point of the site isn't making cool stuff, it's helping other people improve theirs, without imposing my own personality on it. And I think what's causing the confusion is that I'm trying to shoehorn the print-design stuff in there, when (apart from simple "making your thesis look nice in Quark" sort of stuff) it should probably be on a more designy site with an exciting name &c &c. Along with my other arty things.

Re: Glad to help!

[bluedevi.livejournal.com]

(And yes, I do know it's all about the InDesign these days. Poor old Quark, though. I liked it.)

[concourse.livejournal.com]

Last time I was thinking about design it was all in Pagemaker. Ah, happy times.