Re: [Om-synth] The name. Again.

[Dave Robillard]

On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 12:45 -0500, grae wrote:
> Just to ensure clarity.  You are right that it (google) makes the
> potential correction after 3 results, but after 3 "Maude" results it
> goes back to the original "Maud" results, for which there are many
> pages.
> 
> And for the sake of it, I always thought Om was kind of cool, and I
> think you'd find it difficult to find many people around here that
> thought the opposite.  I often think sillyness of the things I come up
> with, even when no one ever gives me reason to think so.
> Self-perception's a bitch....at least for me anyway ;)

(Again, I hate nagging but please don't top-post on this list, you've
wrecked this thread twice now.  Post your replies BELOW what you are
replying to, thanks)

The _top_ 3 Maud results contain some random lady's blog and an antique
shop :).   Om will have no problem whatsoever getting on the first page
(probably #1).  The fact that there are a lot of results means nothing.
People often use the "number of google" hits metric to decide if a name
is good or not, but that's ignorant of how google actually works.
Anything more "relevant" in terms of linking will be above the sea of
crap results noone links to.

That said, it could of course be more unique and thus better.

As for Om the fact that it's qualified in one way or another (eg
om-synth and "Om") is proof that it needs changing as far as I'm
concerned.  The only reason the rest of you don't think so is because
it's not your program so you don't take it personally.  I do.  I'm not
interested in hearing anything more about that name.  It is gone.

-DR-