Michael M, you must have had too much of whatever you were having... DanceAttitude does not begin with an "A"... <P>I'm remaining mom about my suggestions for alternate names as I don't want you-know-who to be lurking and stealing them away from us...

Well, I go to bed for a few hours and look what happens! Many, many thanks for the many, many comments. I'm taking the positon of umpire in this debate, so here are a couple of comments in this capacity. By the way, in this game the umpire is allowed to take a couple of hits at the ball, if he feels like it.<P>The key question here is the current name and how people feel about it. Clearly there are a number of downsides involved with changing the name at this stage:<BR>- process required to find a new name<BR>- changes throughout the site<BR>- registration of a new name<BR>- risk of a partial loss of identity and readership etc<P>These tasks would be worthwhile if people feel that the current name is sufficiently unsuitable. I think it has been useful to look at some other names for comparison, but I believe that the key question is whether we need to look for another name. That would be another ball game. <P>Given the interest in the discussion and the new posters who are sharing their thoughts with us, in my role as umpire, I am extending the discussion for a while longer.

I include here the comments of Tim, a dancer and choreographer who makes his living with websites now. We consulted Tim about the name and here are his thoughts:<P>Regarding your query about the site's name: I wouldn't change it. Here's my<BR>case--<P>1) I understand the concerns about the negative connotations, but there are<BR>also positive ones. Certainly the very factual reference to your taking a<BR>critical look at dance is good, it suggests analysis and thought which I<BR>think your audience would find provoking and appropriate. Aside from the<BR>bad sense of critical (as in criticizing), there is also the good sense of<BR>it as in "vital", though I admit it is somehow less applicable in this<BR>context. But with arts funding being cut, I think it good that somone label<BR>dance as critical, i.e., vital, to our cultures.<P>2) People already know the name. I'm sure this came up in your meeting.<BR>Re-branding sometimes loses people in the transition. You just don't know<BR>what resources are out there that tout the current name and would somehow<BR>miss the updating of your site name.<P>3) I don't think putting dance first in the name will have much effect, if<BR>any, on search engine results. Those are driven so much more by the META<BR>tags (which you're re-looking at, that's good) and to a much greater<BR>extent, the text that appears on the page itself.<BR> ---a side note to this: I understand the indexing robots are getting<BR>smarter about things. Meta tags are beginning to have less impact on how a<BR>page gets indexed due to the problem of people packing them with all kinds<BR>of words (some not even appropriate) just to get search engine results.<BR>They also consider things like text that is colored so as to match the<BR>background color of the page. Ostensibly this text is not in the meta tags<BR>and should therefore be considered very seriously in terms of ranking and<BR>indexing, but it's still a trick to load the page with fake or unduly<BR>additional keywords. A sneaky trick, no doubt.<BR> The thing to bear in mind is that the number of times "dance" or<BR>someone's name appears on a page has a lot to do with how highly the page<BR>will be ranked in search results<P>4) So, to sum up #3, if you decide to change the name after all (for growth<BR>reasons or any other peripheral endeavors which might be helped by doing<BR>so) don't do it for the sake of improved search results.<P><p>[This message has been edited by Stuart Sweeney (edited May 03, 2000).]

What a letdown!<BR>Scrambled out of bed to catch the conclusion...<P>Working to a deadline really does get things moving... should do it more often (there really are other people here!).<P>Azlan, by the way, I was resonding to something Michael (admin) said regarding the word after dance starting with "A"

I have been a letdown to a lot of people have over the years Michael. I try not to let it get me down too much.......

HA!

You are all just TOO FUNNY! I guess making a decision would mean ending a great debate and that would be disappointing. So why not start another debate? Any ideas? <P>Grace, thanks for the alternative names, I like a few of them. I guess I'll owe you when it comes to loyalties by the time I get my own site going. Of course, I would never try and compete with this one. Rather, I was thinking more of a directory "down under" (nickname for Australia - for those of you left in the dark).<P>Seriously, why change the name of this site? It's getting people's attention and it's up and running "full steam ahead." Stuart, I vote you reach a decision and then close shop, but not before handing us a new topic to depate <P>How nice to see that there are other people out there. I hope more and more of you decide to speak up, as it's great to hear (see) more angles on things. Maybe a dash of Australia's horrid "Fosters" would loosen a few silent tongues <P>

Whoa! We are being overrun by Fosters drinking Aussies!!! Just kidding...<P>Michael M, I get it now; the "A" is for the word after dance. But I don't really think it matters for search engines. And too bad you got out of bed for nothing. Stuart does have that bad habit... So do I for that matter.<P>Jennifer, I agree with you 100%. Plus, I actually really like the ring of cri-ti-cal-dance-dot-com. Hmm, maybe we should call ourselves "the site formerly known as criticaldance.com." <P>And where's Michael P?! After all, he was the first one who had the chance to veto the name many moons ago!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>And where's Michael P?!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>err...about two-thirds of the way down on the first page.

You're right again, Stuart. I forgot that he goes by only "Michael" on this board instead of "Lord Michael Phelan, Earl of Bay Dance."

I just found this darn thread! POOOOP! Great debate, and although it's a day late and a dollar short, I'm quite fond of our name and we are becoming an active critical mass of multiple interests and talents.<P>Just my 2 cents.<p>[This message has been edited by shag (edited May 04, 2000).]

The responses seem to be slowing down, so I'm minded (UK Govt. spokesperson's love that phrase) to think about taking stock on this issue Friday morning, UK time. So that the good folks across the US who have not commented so far have Thursday evening to get their opinion registered. <P>

OF COURSE THEY"RE ***SLOWING DOWN***, STUART!!!<P>we worked ourselves into a frenzy while you were sleeping, and then you roll out of bed and think - "hey, this is fun, let's keep 'em at it!"<P>we're WORN OUT, STUART!!!

I've said all I have to say on this topic - maybe someone should make a decision.

The various sub-committes of the main Adjudication Committe and the independent vote counters at the Electoral Reform Society have been up all night completing their computations and their recommendations. <P>And the verdict is.....<P>Time out Mr Sweeney, you have been disconnected from the server. <P>Time out Mr Sweeney, you have been disconnected from the server. <P>Time out Mr Sweeney, you have been disconnected from the server. <P><BR>