Domain name vs website content

[goodone]

I was just wondering what you think on this. I mean myspace for example probably wouldn't be where it is today without its almost 'household name' site. Youtube also, has a very good domain. And others like yahoo, google, msn, godaddy, go, paypal, ebay and so much more. I wonder whether these sites would be half as popular if they had an obscure name. What do you think

[kev woodman]

Well these names were obscure before surely? Youtube, Yahoo, Ebay? They are all pretty nonsensical they just look right now because they are so famous.

[Harry]

If you market you domain aggressively and you have very useful content/service which can attract visitor frequently than any domain can be at top, doesn’t matter what the name is.

[paul]

One of the facet of domain name could be its semantic value, ideally it identity the owner that hold it and particular brand, how many people buy a.tv name in fact that relate to <st1:country-region><st1 ="">Tuvalu</st1></st1:country-region>?
<o ="">
</o>

[kev woodman]

A lot of these big names have very little semantic value - the brand has been built around them. Yahoo is non-descriptive, Google is a contraction of a word almost nobody had heard of before they chose it, Youtube doesn't make any grammatical sense in English (presumably YourTube had already gone), MSN is meaningless etc.

If the concept is strong enough, or you have the backing of a lot of cash and a big corporation, then the quality of the domain name doesn't seem to matter.

[paul]

MSN is not meaningless, the abbreviation is quite appropriate; MicroSoft Network.

[kev woodman]

Obviously... but it's not a distinct word in English.

[paul]

I found the meaning of Kev in dictionary that suggest its meaning; kiloelectron Volt good domain name!

[kev woodman]

lol true - 1000 electron volts or 'a derogatory term applied to a yobbish young man or boy, belonging to Britain's new underclass'.