Site needs a new name

Well just to remind you, you stated that “a name should be accurately descriptive of the thing it names” as part of your objection to DPRevived, and I pointed out a variety of billion dollar companies that started out and continue to have obscure names - Apple, Google, Amazon etc. Your only comeback to that was that I was being “snarky”. Unless I’m missing something, you’re conceding that point no?

Just in case you’re not convinced, let’s think of a few web brands. Facebook for example - that’s a reference to an American college tradition, a physical student directory that places like Harvard used to publish each year. Not only is it completely anachronistic and harking back to a practice from the past, it was completely meaningless to people outside the US, or indeed outside the US college system. Did that hold it back much? Is it time to rename the Facebook site, now that the name refers to something long forgotten?

Twitter. It’s such a ubiquitous term now, we all know what it is and what it means, to the point where “tweet” has taken on a whole new meaning and dictionaries have had to be updated.. but back in the noughties when it was starting out, was Twitter “accurately descriptive of the thing it names”?

YouTube. I mean us old codgers can probably guess at the original meaning of this one, but does anyone since the birth of YouTube refer to the TV as the Tube anymore? Or in fact watch TV? Surely YouTube is a site that needs a new name, right?

Hard no from me. It is catching on, I think that’s indisputable - the site is proving much more successful than the alternatives which could be said to have more “accurate, descriptive” names like DpDiscuss and DPRForum. It has a bit of wordplay to it, it’s distinctive and unique, and it’s established itself with the core target audience (DPR refugees).

I also think that it’s catchy enough so as to not bother newbies in the future, who need neither know nor care where the name came from (but can easily find out if they’re curious).

Thanks for asking. If I had to choose one of the two options you've outlined: Yes, it's just plain weird, awkward or irrelevant - and might be difficult to catch-on.

To be slightly more nuanced about it, I think it's an imperfect (but acceptable and likely effective) name for the transition period, but will become less and less suitable as the demise of DPReview recedes into the past. A name that carries us forward and communicates/encapsulates the positive mission of the site would be a better bet IMO.

Y’all need to take a step back and smell the coffee…
dprevived.com aka digital photography revived.
it will grow on you. lol

Anyhoo… it won’t be long before it’s on page one of goolge.

Any name that is built around "DPR" will have at least some of the same issues that the current name has - i.e. rooted in the past in a way that is backward-looking and will ease transition, but then may hold the site back.

However if we must go there, one option might be to choose a new site name that happens to have those initials - e.g "Digital Pixel Roundup", "Digital Photography Roundtable", "Daft Photo Renegades" or the like. Unfortunately, the "dpr.com" domain appears to be taken --- and in any case, if there's any concern about Amazon protecting its IP or "trade dress" etc., some or all of these may be as problematic as DPRevived.

Alternatively, if we're prepared to cut the umbilical, the options expand quite a bit. Lots of options like "PhotoGeekFest", "CameraphilesAnonymous", "ImageCapture", "CameraOracle" and the like might be worth a look.

I'm not wedded to any of these, just throwing them out there to see if they spark an idea or provide food for thought. The way I see it, the collective mental muscles of the users here are a resource we should consider drawing on.

I like the idea of overloading the initials in the future.
How about: Digital Photography Resources

I happen to think you had it right the first time.

You seem to have done a 180° turn and now regret starting the thread --- but I happen to think the questions in your opening post were legitimate.

However, since I think I've made my position clear, I will defer to others, and ultimately the site organisers, who will have to make the call on this going forward.

Er, I think they beat you to it - they're now the far more obscure Meta!

That kind of proves the point though, although they felt the need to change the overall company name to broaden its remit, they didn’t dare change the name of Facebook itself - and in reality “meta” hasn’t really stuck and most people still think of the whole thing as Facebook!

The never ending thread. lol
As mentioned earlier, I think by lefteye, the three capital letters are not (immediately) comfortable on the eye.

‘Change is neither good or bad, it simply is’.
Don Draper.