A useful thread for figuring out if a name is "too popular"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point is that people following trends in name don’t realize they are just following the trend. Why are people not naming their babies Susan or Linda? Because those names are out of fashion.

Seriously, it’s nothing more than that. We live in the current society and think our fashion, home decor, children’s names, how we wear our hair, etc are all better than previous generations. Trend. Nothing more.

THIS. Come on, guys. It’s so obvious.

Sure, everything follows trends. But it's not "nothing" more than that. Also people genuinely like these names. I think the reason people are pushing back against this argument is that you're basically arguing that people have no taste at all. Not that they have bad taste or taste you don't agree with, but you are arguing that people are just blindly following a trend and not exercising judgment at all. But people obviously put a lot of thought into what they name their kids. So that doesn't ring true.

If you want to use the fashion analogy: I love high waisted clothing and always have. Even when I was in high school and it was out of fashion -- it looks good on me and I find it more comfortable than the low rise everything that was popular back then. But it was hard to find things that were higher rise beyond vintage clothes, so it's not like I wore it all the time. But then in the last 10 years high rise has become more fashionable and I wear it pretty much exclusively and I like that I can find it almost anywhere. I'm sure there are people who look at my clothes and think "fashion victim -- she's just wearing high rise because some magazine told her to." But it's not one or the other. I am wearing it both because I like it AND because it's on trend and therefore more available to me. It's both. Which is typical -- very few people embrace every single trend to come along, but instead gravitates toward the trends they like the most based on their genuine preferences.

And it's the same with baby names. Are the popular names today trends? Yes, of course, these are the names that are in fashion. But also: people are choosing one name out of all the names that are "on trend" and they are choosing that name because it's the name they like the most. Like even the person who is choosing Sophia over Charlotte or Luna over Olivia is doing so based on something personal and specific to them. Maybe it's their grandmother's name or maybe it reminds them of their favorite children's book or maybe they just love how those sounds go together. They are still exercising a choice, even if it's the same one lots of others exercise. They are not just reaching into a hat of "Top Names" and going with whatever comes out. It's a combination of fashion and personal preference, like most things.

You’re exercising a minor choice within the trend, PP. Using your personal fashion statement (which I applaud, btw) as an analogy, you aren’t wearing hoop skirts or wild futuristic jumpsuits. You’re still within contemporary fashion.

And in regard to names, that people are making choices within the trend (Sophia over Charlotte) doesn’t disprove the trend!

I guess but very few people want the hoop skirt or wild futuristic jumpsuits of baby names, either. Unless you're Frank Zappa. But even the people who emphasize choosing an "underused" name are generally following the same trends as other people. They are naming their child Lydia instead of Olivia, or Cordelia instead of Charlotte. They aren't totally bucking the current name aesthetics of the day, they are just finding a less common name that embraces that same aesthetics. They are shopping for the cool, lesser-known Dutch designer's high waisted jeans, instead of buying classic high-rise Levis. Which is fine! But also still within contemporary fashion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I guess but very few people want the hoop skirt or wild futuristic jumpsuits of baby names, either. Unless you're Frank Zappa. But even the people who emphasize choosing an "underused" name are generally following the same trends as other people. They are naming their child Lydia instead of Olivia, or Cordelia instead of Charlotte. They aren't totally bucking the current name aesthetics of the day, they are just finding a less common name that embraces that same aesthetics. They are shopping for the cool, lesser-known Dutch designer's high waisted jeans, instead of buying classic high-rise Levis. Which is fine! But also still within contemporary fashion.

Exactly. If you really wanted to be buck the trends you'd pick Gertrude or Bertha.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point is that people following trends in name don’t realize they are just following the trend. Why are people not naming their babies Susan or Linda? Because those names are out of fashion.

Seriously, it’s nothing more than that. We live in the current society and think our fashion, home decor, children’s names, how we wear our hair, etc are all better than previous generations. Trend. Nothing more.

THIS. Come on, guys. It’s so obvious.

Sure, everything follows trends. But it's not "nothing" more than that. Also people genuinely like these names. I think the reason people are pushing back against this argument is that you're basically arguing that people have no taste at all. Not that they have bad taste or taste you don't agree with, but you are arguing that people are just blindly following a trend and not exercising judgment at all. But people obviously put a lot of thought into what they name their kids. So that doesn't ring true.

If you want to use the fashion analogy: I love high waisted clothing and always have. Even when I was in high school and it was out of fashion -- it looks good on me and I find it more comfortable than the low rise everything that was popular back then. But it was hard to find things that were higher rise beyond vintage clothes, so it's not like I wore it all the time. But then in the last 10 years high rise has become more fashionable and I wear it pretty much exclusively and I like that I can find it almost anywhere. I'm sure there are people who look at my clothes and think "fashion victim -- she's just wearing high rise because some magazine told her to." But it's not one or the other. I am wearing it both because I like it AND because it's on trend and therefore more available to me. It's both. Which is typical -- very few people embrace every single trend to come along, but instead gravitates toward the trends they like the most based on their genuine preferences.

And it's the same with baby names. Are the popular names today trends? Yes, of course, these are the names that are in fashion. But also: people are choosing one name out of all the names that are "on trend" and they are choosing that name because it's the name they like the most. Like even the person who is choosing Sophia over Charlotte or Luna over Olivia is doing so based on something personal and specific to them. Maybe it's their grandmother's name or maybe it reminds them of their favorite children's book or maybe they just love how those sounds go together. They are still exercising a choice, even if it's the same one lots of others exercise. They are not just reaching into a hat of "Top Names" and going with whatever comes out. It's a combination of fashion and personal preference, like most things.

You’re very prolix.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While interesting, none of this helpw much because those stats are across the US, and some names are highly concentrated in an area. When my DS was born, at his first well baby visit the pediatricin exclaimed "oh! Another Alexander, he's our 3rd one this week!". Sigh. It wasn't very high on the list when he was born, but clearly in our demographic it was popular. He has consistently been one of two or more. He doesn't really care (nor do I), but you would never have guessed it based on the SSN rankings for his year of birth.

You can look up the stats by state or territory, though. I didn't know this when I was pregnant but someone on here told me. That can help you avoid a name that is locally more popular. The name we used wound up being more popular locally than nationally, but has since fallen out of favor locally while staying pretty steady nationally. I think there was a little blip of increased popularity here and then people started laying off the name. Kind of a self-correction. Either way, we've only ever met one child with the same name, on a playground, and she was younger than my DD. She's never been in a class with another.

Even looking it up by state is unlikely to help a lot if you live in, say McLean or Arlington, which probably has more in common with NW DC than Roanoake.

Then you look at stats for both VA and DC, and probably MD too. It's just information. None of it is determinative and you have to decide for yourself how much weight to give it.

+1

You and PP are masters of the obvious.

[Anonymous]

Just stay out of the top 100 and away from the made-up names and you’ll be fine.

Laura, Mary, Blythe, Daisy, Amy, Susannah, Melanie, Christina, Amaya, Molly... I could go on and on. So many great names without being overused or weird.

My three girls names are on my list, btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just stay out of the top 100 and away from the made-up names and you’ll be fine.

Laura, Mary, Blythe, Daisy, Amy, Susannah, Melanie, Christina, Amaya, Molly... I could go on and on. So many great names without being overused or weird.

My three girls names are on my list, btw.

I love the name Blythe. I just had my first and only DD and didn't use it, but it was up there for me, along with Léonie.

[Anonymous]

I really like Blythe, but wasn’t brave enough to use it

My daughter’s name also means happy, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really like Blythe, but wasn’t brave enough to use it

My daughter’s name also means happy, though.

Felicity? Joy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just stay out of the top 100 and away from the made-up names and you’ll be fine.

Laura, Mary, Blythe, Daisy, Amy, Susannah, Melanie, Christina, Amaya, Molly... I could go on and on. So many great names without being overused or weird.

My three girls names are on my list, btw.

The thing is... I don't love any of those names except Daisy, which my DH nixed (he'd do Margaret but I didn't trust his family to actually call her Daisy and I don't actually like Margaret as a name, so).

I spent a lot of time making lists of names outside the top 100 but in the end, the names I like best were all in the 20-80 range. My DH only liked one name outside the top 100 -- June -- but it didn't sound great with our last name.

I'm sure some people think I'm basic for choosing a name in the top 100. We agonized a bit because I didn't want a name that as "too popular" but I also wanted a name we both really loved and connected to, and we honestly could not find that in these other names. I am sensitive to people who criticize people for choosing more popular names or who say that we didn't put enough thought into the name because we did, and I think we chose a really beautiful, fitting name for our baby with a wonderful meaning, that sounds really good with her other names as well as with our names (I love how our names all sound together on our holiday card, for instance).

We've never met another kid with the same name (she's 6 now). When she was in preschool, there was a child in another class with the same name but that girl went by a nickname we've never used. She probably will meet people with her name in her life because it's not that rare, but she's definitely not going to have a "Jennifer in the 80s" experience. And after all that agonizing, we definitely made the right choice in choosing one of the more popular names on her list. I'm really glad we didn't go with one of the names we felt less enthusiastic about just to stay out of the top 100.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point is that people following trends in name don’t realize they are just following the trend. Why are people not naming their babies Susan or Linda? Because those names are out of fashion.

Seriously, it’s nothing more than that. We live in the current society and think our fashion, home decor, children’s names, how we wear our hair, etc are all better than previous generations. Trend. Nothing more.

THIS. Come on, guys. It’s so obvious.

Sure, everything follows trends. But it's not "nothing" more than that. Also people genuinely like these names. I think the reason people are pushing back against this argument is that you're basically arguing that people have no taste at all. Not that they have bad taste or taste you don't agree with, but you are arguing that people are just blindly following a trend and not exercising judgment at all. But people obviously put a lot of thought into what they name their kids. So that doesn't ring true.

If you want to use the fashion analogy: I love high waisted clothing and always have. Even when I was in high school and it was out of fashion -- it looks good on me and I find it more comfortable than the low rise everything that was popular back then. But it was hard to find things that were higher rise beyond vintage clothes, so it's not like I wore it all the time. But then in the last 10 years high rise has become more fashionable and I wear it pretty much exclusively and I like that I can find it almost anywhere. I'm sure there are people who look at my clothes and think "fashion victim -- she's just wearing high rise because some magazine told her to." But it's not one or the other. I am wearing it both because I like it AND because it's on trend and therefore more available to me. It's both. Which is typical -- very few people embrace every single trend to come along, but instead gravitates toward the trends they like the most based on their genuine preferences.

And it's the same with baby names. Are the popular names today trends? Yes, of course, these are the names that are in fashion. But also: people are choosing one name out of all the names that are "on trend" and they are choosing that name because it's the name they like the most. Like even the person who is choosing Sophia over Charlotte or Luna over Olivia is doing so based on something personal and specific to them. Maybe it's their grandmother's name or maybe it reminds them of their favorite children's book or maybe they just love how those sounds go together. They are still exercising a choice, even if it's the same one lots of others exercise. They are not just reaching into a hat of "Top Names" and going with whatever comes out. It's a combination of fashion and personal preference, like most things.

You’re very prolix.

It's better than "This is my opinion and everyone who disagrees is dumb." Not sure what the point of a message board is if people don't explain their reasoning and thought process -- it's the only way to have a conversation of any value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point is that people following trends in name don’t realize they are just following the trend. Why are people not naming their babies Susan or Linda? Because those names are out of fashion.

Seriously, it’s nothing more than that. We live in the current society and think our fashion, home decor, children’s names, how we wear our hair, etc are all better than previous generations. Trend. Nothing more.

THIS. Come on, guys. It’s so obvious.

Sure, everything follows trends. But it's not "nothing" more than that. Also people genuinely like these names. I think the reason people are pushing back against this argument is that you're basically arguing that people have no taste at all. Not that they have bad taste or taste you don't agree with, but you are arguing that people are just blindly following a trend and not exercising judgment at all. But people obviously put a lot of thought into what they name their kids. So that doesn't ring true.

If you want to use the fashion analogy: I love high waisted clothing and always have. Even when I was in high school and it was out of fashion -- it looks good on me and I find it more comfortable than the low rise everything that was popular back then. But it was hard to find things that were higher rise beyond vintage clothes, so it's not like I wore it all the time. But then in the last 10 years high rise has become more fashionable and I wear it pretty much exclusively and I like that I can find it almost anywhere. I'm sure there are people who look at my clothes and think "fashion victim -- she's just wearing high rise because some magazine told her to." But it's not one or the other. I am wearing it both because I like it AND because it's on trend and therefore more available to me. It's both. Which is typical -- very few people embrace every single trend to come along, but instead gravitates toward the trends they like the most based on their genuine preferences.

And it's the same with baby names. Are the popular names today trends? Yes, of course, these are the names that are in fashion. But also: people are choosing one name out of all the names that are "on trend" and they are choosing that name because it's the name they like the most. Like even the person who is choosing Sophia over Charlotte or Luna over Olivia is doing so based on something personal and specific to them. Maybe it's their grandmother's name or maybe it reminds them of their favorite children's book or maybe they just love how those sounds go together. They are still exercising a choice, even if it's the same one lots of others exercise. They are not just reaching into a hat of "Top Names" and going with whatever comes out. It's a combination of fashion and personal preference, like most things.

You’re very prolix.

It's better than "This is my opinion and everyone who disagrees is dumb." Not sure what the point of a message board is if people don't explain their reasoning and thought process -- it's the only way to have a conversation of any value.

Please write an essay about it.

[Anonymous]

Just stay away from the top 200 names and keep your ear to the ground for what your friends are naming their babies. You primarily want to avoid names that are prevalent/popular in their generation.

And it’s not hard. There are a lot of beautiful names out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just stay away from the top 200 names and keep your ear to the ground for what your friends are naming their babies. You primarily want to avoid names that are prevalent/popular in their generation.

And it’s not hard. There are a lot of beautiful names out there.

The idea of crossing off the top 200 NAMES for being too popular is absolutely crazy to me. Yes, there are a lot of beautiful names out there, but that's severe.

Example: one of the names we considered but didn't use was Lucia. It's ranked #163, which mean that 1,724 girls were given that name. Out of 3.6 million babies born in 2020. It's a great name! We found one that was a better fit for us, but I think anyone could choose this name and not worry about their kid sharing a name with many, if any, other kids/people in their lives. Some other great names in the top 200 that really do not pose a big risk of what people seem to be referring to as "the Jennifer Problem":

Julian (#34)
Anthony (#41)
Micah (#107)
Kingston (#118)
Vincent (#121)
Calvin (#143) ---> I really love this one someone use it!
Ivan (#153)
Atlas (#189)
Victor (#200)

Riley (#33)
Anna (#68)
Samantha(#90)
Jade (#97)
Iris (#127)
Esther (#153)
Sienna (#166)
Catalina (#178)
River (#186)

None of these are spelling variants. They don't have common nicknames. They are mostly familiar names, but not hyper-trendy (though they all fit into naming conventions that will sound good to modern ears, which does matter! you usually need two people to agree to a name, and it's nice to have some acceptance of it in your family and friend group for most people). And all in the top 200.

Nothing wrong with going lower on the list, but the idea that you HAVE to in order to avoid the Jennifer Problem is crazy. Of course not. You're talking about, at most, a few thousand babies with this name in any given year. Meaning your kid may meet a few people with that name in their life but is extremely unlikely to be in a class with three of them at any point in their life. There is not some scourge of Kingstons or Irises in America's preschools. Come on, folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just stay away from the top 200 names and keep your ear to the ground for what your friends are naming their babies. You primarily want to avoid names that are prevalent/popular in their generation.

And it’s not hard. There are a lot of beautiful names out there.

The idea of crossing off the top 200 NAMES for being too popular is absolutely crazy to me. Yes, there are a lot of beautiful names out there, but that's severe.

Example: one of the names we considered but didn't use was Lucia. It's ranked #163, which mean that 1,724 girls were given that name. Out of 3.6 million babies born in 2020. It's a great name! We found one that was a better fit for us, but I think anyone could choose this name and not worry about their kid sharing a name with many, if any, other kids/people in their lives. Some other great names in the top 200 that really do not pose a big risk of what people seem to be referring to as "the Jennifer Problem":

Julian (#34)
Anthony (#41)
Micah (#107)
Kingston (#118)
Vincent (#121)
Calvin (#143) ---> I really love this one someone use it!
Ivan (#153)
Atlas (#189)
Victor (#200)

Riley (#33)
Anna (#68)
Samantha(#90)
Jade (#97)
Iris (#127)
Esther (#153)
Sienna (#166)
Catalina (#178)
River (#186)

None of these are spelling variants. They don't have common nicknames. They are mostly familiar names, but not hyper-trendy (though they all fit into naming conventions that will sound good to modern ears, which does matter! you usually need two people to agree to a name, and it's nice to have some acceptance of it in your family and friend group for most people). And all in the top 200.

Nothing wrong with going lower on the list, but the idea that you HAVE to in order to avoid the Jennifer Problem is crazy. Of course not. You're talking about, at most, a few thousand babies with this name in any given year. Meaning your kid may meet a few people with that name in their life but is extremely unlikely to be in a class with three of them at any point in their life. There is not some scourge of Kingstons or Irises in America's preschools. Come on, folks.

True but that’s today and doesn’t take into consideration upward trends. A generation is 20 years. If it’s important to you, I think staying away from the top 200 names is generally a good bet. If it’s not important to you, then don’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just stay away from the top 200 names and keep your ear to the ground for what your friends are naming their babies. You primarily want to avoid names that are prevalent/popular in their generation.

And it’s not hard. There are a lot of beautiful names out there.

The idea of crossing off the top 200 NAMES for being too popular is absolutely crazy to me. Yes, there are a lot of beautiful names out there, but that's severe.

Example: one of the names we considered but didn't use was Lucia. It's ranked #163, which mean that 1,724 girls were given that name. Out of 3.6 million babies born in 2020. It's a great name! We found one that was a better fit for us, but I think anyone could choose this name and not worry about their kid sharing a name with many, if any, other kids/people in their lives. Some other great names in the top 200 that really do not pose a big risk of what people seem to be referring to as "the Jennifer Problem":

Julian (#34)
Anthony (#41)
Micah (#107)
Kingston (#118)
Vincent (#121)
Calvin (#143) ---> I really love this one someone use it!
Ivan (#153)
Atlas (#189)
Victor (#200)

Riley (#33)
Anna (#68)
Samantha(#90)
Jade (#97)
Iris (#127)
Esther (#153)
Sienna (#166)
Catalina (#178)
River (#186)

None of these are spelling variants. They don't have common nicknames. They are mostly familiar names, but not hyper-trendy (though they all fit into naming conventions that will sound good to modern ears, which does matter! you usually need two people to agree to a name, and it's nice to have some acceptance of it in your family and friend group for most people). And all in the top 200.

Nothing wrong with going lower on the list, but the idea that you HAVE to in order to avoid the Jennifer Problem is crazy. Of course not. You're talking about, at most, a few thousand babies with this name in any given year. Meaning your kid may meet a few people with that name in their life but is extremely unlikely to be in a class with three of them at any point in their life. There is not some scourge of Kingstons or Irises in America's preschools. Come on, folks.

True but that’s today and doesn’t take into consideration upward trends. A generation is 20 years. If it’s important to you, I think staying away from the top 200 names is generally a good bet. If it’s not important to you, then don’t.

If that's your metric, almost no name is safe unless you are literally making one up or choosing something unpronounceable (or as a PP suggested, intentionally choosing something that sounds bad to modern ears, like Bertha). Because lots of names have gone from deep in the list to top 200 in the course of just a few years.

You have to decide what matters more to you: your child having an uncommon name or your child having a name that sounds good to people. There is a balance to be struck, but you can't guarantee both. Appealling names WILL climb the list. If the name you pick doesn't, it's not because you are a genius. It's because you have hyper-specific (or just bad) taste. And your kid might resent that a lot more than they would have ever resented sharing a name with some kid on their soccer team for a year or two.