Tag Archives: name predictions

My Top 100 Predictions – How Accurate Were They?

29 Sunday Jun 2014

Posted by in Naming Issues

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, ,

cfa-exam-december-2012-results

Before the 2013 birth data was released, I published my predictions of what names could be joining the Top 100 at some point, based on how frequently I’d seen them in birth notices that year. Now that all the data is out, I thought I’d go back and see how accurate this method was.

CORRECT

Indi/Indie
I only said that if all spellings were combined this name would already be Top 100, but Indie joined the national Top 100 at #94, and the Top 100 of New South Wales at #100. Meanwhile, both Indi and Indie joined the Queensland Top 100 at #92 and #90.

Louis/Lewis
This was another situation where if both these spellings were counted as one name, it would be a Top 100 name. As it happened, Louis not only joined the national Top 100 at #74, it was the fastest-rising name of the year. Lewis also joined the Top 100 at #97.

Harriet
I suggested it was ready to make the Top 100 this year, which it did – Harriet joined the national Top 100 at #89, and was one of 2013’s fastest-rising names to boot.

Elsie
I predicted Elsie would be in the national Top 100 within the next two years; it made #91 last year.

Pippa
I said that Pippa could make the national Top 100 within the next two years. It was quicker than that, making #95.

Indigo
This seemed likely to become a Top 100 name at some point, and it joined the national Top 100 at #96.

Peyton
I thought Peyton was a possibility to make Top 100 one day; it joined the national Top 100 at #98.

Parker
I picked this to become a future Top 100 name, and it joined the national Top 100 at #98.

PARTIALLY CORRECT

April
I thought April might join the national Top 100 this year, but it didn’t, although it was Top 100 in Queensland (new), Tasmania, and the Australian Capital Territory.

Asha
I thought this had a chance to join the national Top 100, which didn’t happen, although it did make the Top 100 in the Australian Capital Territory.

Spencer
I thought that Spencer had a shot at making the national Top 100, and although that didn’t happen, it was one of the fastest-rising names in Victoria, which does look promising for the future.

Theodore
This seemed like a possibility to make the Top 100 within five years. It joined the Top 100 in Queensland, and was one of the state’s fastest-rising names, which is very encouraging.

Alana
I said that if all spellings were combined this name would already be Top 100, but it did join the Top 100 in the Australian Capital Territory, scraping in at #99.

Lexi
As above. It joined the Top 100 in Victoria at #90.

Amity
I thought this was a possibility to make Top 100 one day: although it didn’t make the national Top 100, it did join the Queensland Top 100 at #86 and was one of the state’s fastest-rising names.

Jude
I thought perhaps this might make Top 100 at some point. It has already joined the Victorian Top 100.

INCORRECT

Bonnie
Because this was already Top 100 in Victoria, I thought it might keep rising and join the national Top 100 as well. It didn’t – in fact it left the Victorian Top 100 as well. It’s only on the Tasmanian Top 100.

Billie
This is another name which seemed as if it might take off since it was already on the Victorian Top 100. Like Bonnie, it fell instead.

Penelope
This was new to the national Top 100 and several state Top 100s, and one of the fastest-rising names of the year – in Victoria, it moved up more than 100 places! Did I see it coming? Nope; it moved much faster than I thought possible. I didn’t even see that many Penelopes in birth notices – maybe six or seven in the year, and never more than one in an individual week.

Nathaniel
This was new to the national Top 100 and several state 100s, and one of the fastest-rising names of the year. If I had seen enough examples in birth notices, I would have checked it and seen that it was only just outside the Top 100 and risng steeply. But I didn’t.

Ayla
This joined the national Top 100, and was one of the the fastest-rising names. I did notice several Aylas in birth notices, but there didn’t seem enough to make any firm predictions about it.

Daisy
This joined the Top 100, and was one of the fastest-rising names. There were quite a few Daisys in birth notices, and in retrospect, I should have paid more attention to the fact that it was only just outside the Top 100 in Victoria. Missing this one really was a careless mistake.

Ariana
This just scraped in at #100. There was little data on Ariana for me to be able to predict its future with any certainty, and I certainly don’t recall seeing more than a few in birth notices.

Nevaeh
I’m still scratching my head as to how this made the Top 100, when it only charted in Queensland – generally a name has to make the Top 100 in either New South Wales or Victoria to be in the national Top 100. No, I didn’t see it coming, didn’t see very many in birth notices, and frankly I still think there was an error somewhere!

There were eight hits, eight misses, and eight that weren’t exactly right, but didn’t seem quite wrong either. It seems as if predicting the future top names based on my own observations gave some mixed results, and although I still think it was a worthwhile exercise, I’m left with some doubts about its usefulness.

POLL RESULTS
71% of people thought using birth notices to predict future popularity was generally useful, with 50% saying it was mostly accurate, but with some notable misses, and a generous 21% thinking it was pretty much spot on.

Only 5% of people were totally unimpressed with the method, with 3% saying it was mostly inaccurate with some notable hits, and a harsh 2% seeing it as pretty much a complete failure.

24% hedged their bets by saying it was pretty much fifty-fifty each way.

The Top Ten Boys Names of 2028

27 Sunday May 2012

Posted by in Your Questions Answered

≈ 16 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This follows on from The Top Ten Girls Names of 2028, so if you want to know the methods used, and what this is all about, and whether it’s really the Top 10 of 2028, then go read that first. If you’ve read it, you’ll know I ran into a few frustrations doing the girls names, and if anything, the boys names ended up being even more of a headache.

Angie, the discerning blogger behind Upswing Baby Names, was kind enough to leave me a long and thoughtful comment, which in part wondered whether posting predictions itself could change the future.

For example, a parent worried about a name they like gaining popularity may avoid it, even if the name is currently under-used. Therefore, names tipped to become popular are less likely to actually become popular. (Hmm, if this is true, pick a name that is touted as being popular in the future, because that will scare everyone else off!)

Angie herself, in her article Warning: Your Baby’s Name Could Become #1, notes that the number of popular names is shrinking markedly each decade, and that in effect, the popularity of names is virtually meaningless today. Yet somehow, we worry about it more than ever. Pretty crazy, huh?

Now I didn’t fret myself too much over Angie’s concerns, because I didn’t really imagine many people would read my blog entry, and didn’t think those that did would pay any attention. So I was somewhat disconcerted to see that it had been posted on a parenting forum, in part as an alert that the name a woman had chosen for her daughter, Freya, had been pegged for potential eventual #1 status by yours truly.

Fortunately, at least one of my predictions was proved right, because nobody appeared to pay much attention to me, and several flat-out said I was wrong. (These tended to be the type of people who didn’t think Olivia was popular, because they hardly knew anyone of that name, so their views on name popularity may not be particularly au courant).

The overwhelming advice given was exactly what I would have said myself: Don’t worry about whether a name will be popular in the future, that isn’t something you are able to control, and it would be foolish to avoid using a name you love for fear of what may happen later.

Sage, sane and sensible advice. Follow it!

Current Top Ten

  • William #24 in ’95 and #37 for the 1980s (gradual rise up the Top 50)
  • Lucas #87 in ’95 and #105 for the 1980s (steady rise into the Top 100)
  • Lachlan #26 in ’95 and #75 for the 1980s (steady rise up the Top 100)
  • Ethan #61 in ’95 and #323 for the 1980s (precipitious rise into the Top 100)
  • Oliver #75 in ’95 and #140 for the 1980s (steep rise into the Top 100)
  • Jack #7 in ’95 and #91 for the 1980s (steady rise up the Top 100)
  • Noah #161 for the 1990s and in rare use for the 1980s (new name that skyrockets)
  • Thomas #6 in ’95 and #27 for the 1980s (gradual rise into the Top 10)
  • Joshua #1 in ’95 and #11 for the 1980s (gradual rise to #1)
  • Cooper #125 for the 1990s, in rare use in the 1980s (new name that skyrockets)

1. ISAAC

Isaac is currently #19, and in 2001 he was #40. This is pretty close to William’s stately progress through the Top 50, and as such, I am picking him as the #1 name of the future. It did come as a bit of surprise to me, but it’s the only name that even comes near to matching William’s pattern. When I checked the Top 100 for the US and England/Wales, both of them still have Isaac around where he was for us ten years ago, but making similar progress. The popularity of Isaac may become apparent here earlier due to our smaller population size.

2. KAI

Kai is #83 right now, and he was #105 for the early 2000s. This is an extremely good match with Lucas, almost perfect in fact. Now the question is, will Kai shoot up the Top 100 the way Lucas did? I’m a bit sceptical, because I can’t help feeling that Lucas got quite a big boost from popular culture. I think someone is going to have to produce a TV show with a likeable main character named Kai. Even without such a TV show, it’s clear that Kai is doing very well for himself.

3. LOGAN

Logan is currently #34, and in 2001 he was #78. That’s not quite a good enough match to please me, but it’s the best I could get. Although the two names sound a bit alike, I don’t think Logan is going to be the next Lachlan, because Logan simply doesn’t mean as much in Australia as Lachlan does; it doesn’t have the same history and resonance. As you can see, it hasn’t climbed as high in the same space of time either. However, Logan is a common place name in Australia, and I’m still tipping it to continue rising.

4. CHASE

Chase is currently #85, and he was #407 for the early 2000s. I couldn’t find a name which mimicked Ethan very closely, and Chase was the best I could do. As you can see, he has actually climbed faster than Ethan did, and Ethan was no slouch. If Chase continues at his current rate, he will be Top Ten sooner than 2028. We’ll have to wait and see.

5. HUGO

Hugo is currently #90, and he was #143 for the early 2000s. This is a similar pattern to Oliver, but Hugo hasn’t climbed quite as high as Oliver did in the same space of time. However, you can see that he is still making good progress, and looks set to continue. He also has the fashionable OH sound we saw on the girls’ list – although can anyone really believe in a Top Ten which contains both a Harlow for girls and a Hugo for boys? It boggles the mind.

6. LUCAS

Lucas is currently #2, and ten years ago he was #82. This looks quite similar to Jack’s climb from the bottom of the Top 100 into the Top 10. Jack has of course proved himself a real stayer, and we’ll have to see whether Lucas has similar powers of endurance. I was going to say I doubted it, and then I looked back through the blog and saw I had earlier tipped Lucas to be only just outside the Top 10 in thirty years, based on comparisons with the Top Ten of 1982. So for reasons of consistency, I now feel compelled to say that yes, Lucas will still be in the Top Ten seventeen years later.

7. BENTLEY OR GRAYSON (???)

I knew I was going to hit a horrible snag at some point, and this was the point where that occurred. I needed to find a name that, like Noah in 1995, is around #160 at the moment, but ten years ago, did not even chart. The trouble is, it’s not possible to find that on the present chart, because it’s too new to show up yet. Left struggling in the dark, all I could think of was that since Noah was a name that became popular in the United States before it did here, I would see where Noah was on the US charts in 1995. It had just scraped its way onto the very bottom of the Top 100, after climbing a very brisk 59 places. I had a look at the 2011 US chart to see if there were any names that looked similar to that, which might possibly be around #160 here, and drew a blank. The names on the US Top 100 which climbed the highest last year were Bentley and Grayson, but only 25 places – not even half what Noah managed. Are Bentley and Grayson in the mid-100s here at the moment? I have no idea. If I go down just outside the Top 100, Easton (#102) climbed 43 places, and Jace (#106) climbed 40 places, which comes closer to Noah, but I can’t really see either of them in the mid-100s. I don’t think there is an equivalent to Noah, but without any solid data to draw on, I’m left dangling. Your guess is very much as good (or bad) as mine – and that is all this is, complete guesswork.

8. ETHAN

Ethan is currently #4, and in 2001 he was #17. That isn’t a perfect match with Thomas, but it does show Ethan moving up the Top 50 into the Top 10, like Thomas. I could have chosen either Oliver or Noah, but the idea of having both Olive and Oliver in the Top 10 seemed ludicrous, and I was quite out of patience with poor Noah by this stage. I also saw that I had earlier tipped Ethan to be a real stayer, so once more felt that I had little choice but to choose him again.

9. WILLIAM

William is currently the #1 name, and in 2001 he was #10. This is virtually a perfect match with long-lasting Joshua, who was #1 in 1995, and #11 for the 1980s. Basically if trends in boys’ names continue as they have been, 30% of the Top 10 in seventeen years will consist of names that are in the present Top 10. I feel as if boys’ names are becoming less conservative and there will be greater change coming in the future, but that may just be wishful thinking on my part.

10. ARCHER

With finding an equivalent for Cooper, I was in a similar position to finding an equivalent to Noah (ie there would be no data available at this early stage). However, I felt I had more freedom to choose, because Cooper seems to be a name which is much more popular in Australia than anywhere else. Therefore, there was no need to look through overseas data, or do any number crunching – it was just a matter of thinking of a new name which has grown wildly in popularity over the past few years, yet isn’t in the Top 100 yet. I was also hoping it would be an English surname/vocabulary name like Cooper. It really didn’t take much thought to light upon Archer; after reading birth announcements for months, I can see Archer is a name taking off like wildfire, and anyone can see it will be in the Top 100 within a few years or so. Can I see it reaching the Top 10? Yes, easily. It has better nickname options than Cooper, and a more romantic meaning, so I wouldn’t be surprised if it does better than Cooper.

My Tips for Coming Trends

  • IE sounds, as in Isaac and Kai
  • OH sounds, as in Logan and Hugo
  • Hard K sounds, as in Isaac, Kai and Lucas
  • S-enders, like Chase and Lucas
  • The rise and rise of the surname name for boys
  • Stronger influence from the US than from the UK
  • The names that are popular now still hanging on and becoming standards

MYTH: Very Popular Names Should be Avoided, Because in Thirty Years They Will Sound Dated and Embarassing

18 Sunday Mar 2012

Posted by in Baby Name Mythbusters

≈ 16 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Along with all the articles on popular names that came out with the 2011 name data, there were several which warned parents not to give their baby a name from the Top 10 , because in thirty years it will sound old and frumpy.

I don’t know why they all decided thirty years was the point at which this would occur – I would have thought by the age of thirty, you would be too mature to care if you had a fashionable name or not anyway. Seriously, if you are over the age of thirty, and thinking ZOMG my name is like totally lame and uncool now! all I can tell you is Get a grip! You’re not in high school any more. Also, nobody has used ZOMG since 2007.

Of course, it’s kind of silly, because if everyone stopped using the Top 10 names because they were too popular, then they wouldn’t be Top 10 any more, ten other names would be. The only way you can avoid some names being at the top of the popularity lists is to have a law that each name can only be used once per year. In which case, pity the kids born in December, who will be named Farqui-Neemehoor or Exmayhemaliah.

However, putting that rather obvious objection aside, I decided to take a look at the Top 10 of 1982, to see if those names really had dated as badly as the Commodore 64, Bucks Fizz, and puffed shoulders, or were still going strong, like Angelina Jolie, environmental activism, and deely bobbers.

GIRLS

1. Sarah: Classic name which has never left the rankings. Has been Top 100 since the 1960s. Currently gently declining at #31.

2. Rebecca: Almost continually in the rankings, only dropping off in the 1930s. Was Top 100 from the 1960s until the late 2000s. Currently gently declining in the mid 100s.

3. Melissa: Has charted since the 1950s, and was Top 100 from the 1960s to the 2000s. Currently stable in the mid-300s.

4. Jessica: Has charted since the 1960s, and was Top 10 by the 1980s. It kept climbing, and became the #1 name of the 1990s. Currently stable at #20.

5. Nicole: Has charted since the 1950s, and was Top 100 from the 1960s until the late 2000s. Currently stable in the low 200s.

6. Lauren: Has charted since the 1940s, and was Top 10 by the 1980s. It continued to climb, and peaked in the 1990s. Lauren has only just left the Top 100, and is probably in the very low 100s.

7. Michelle: Has charted since the 1940s, and was Top 100 from the 1950s to the 2000s. Currently stable in the mid-100s.

8. Kate: Ranked in the 1900s, but dropped off the charts from the 1930s to the 1950s. Was Top 100 from the 1970s until the very end of the 2000s. Currently stable in the low 100s; however I believe this name is not finished, and may rejoin the Top 100.

9. Emma: Almost continuously in the rankings, only dropping off in the 1940s. Has been Top 100 since the 1970s. Currently #17 and on a slight rise.

10. Lisa: Has charted since the 1940s, and was Top 100 from the 1960s to the 2000s. Currently declining in the mid-500s.

BOYS

1. Michael: Solid classic that’s never left the Top 100, and was Top 10 from 1940 to the 2000s. Currently stable at #35.

2. Mathew: Classic name that has never left the rankings, and has been Top 100 since the 1950s. Currently gently declining at #32.

3. Andrew: Solid classic that’s never left the Top 100, and was Top 10 from the 1960s to the 1990s. Currently stable at #70.

4. David: Solid classic that’s never left the Top 100, and was Top 10 from the 1940s to the 1990s. Currently stable at #78.

5. Daniel: Solid classic that’s never left the Top 100, and was Top 10 from the 1970s to the late 2000s. Currently gently declining at #24.

6. Christopher: Classic name that has never left the rankings. It was Top 100 in the 1900s, and returned to it in the 1940s. Currently stable at #84.

7. Benjamin: Classic name that has never left the rankings, and has been Top 100 since the 1970s. Currently on a decline at #11.

8. James: Solid, enduring classic that has never left the Top 20. It was Top 10 from the 1900s to the 1940s, and then again from the 1980s to the late 2000s. Currently on a slight decline at #12.

9. Mark: Classic name that has never left the rankings, and was Top 100 from the 1940s to the late 2000s. Currently stable in the low 200s.

10. Luke: Has charted since the 1940s, and been Top 100 since the 1970s. Currently declining at #33.

From the girls’ list, three of them are still in the Top 100, and from the boys’ list nine of them are still Top 100. Of the names that have left the Top 100, most of them are stable, rather than becoming ever less popular. Michelle and Nicole may not sound the freshest, but the 100s and 200s are not the dim backwoods of the popularity charts (they are where where Mary and Clara live). Melissa and Lisa are probably the most dated-sounding of the names, but they are on the charts, which means that parents are still using them. Based on the data above, I think that’s pretty much a BUSTED.

However, another theory I’ve seen on baby name forums is that the names of thirty years ago have become so firmly entrenched that they now seem a little … well, boring. This idea does have some merit, because although names such as Emma and Andrew are absolutely great, and nobody will criticise you for using them, nobody is going to say, “Oh what a stunningly beautiful and unusual name; I’m sure there’s a fascinating story behind your choice of it,” either. Which is fine, not everyone wants their child’s name to be a constant source of comments and questions. But I’d be edging towards a PLAUSIBLE on that one.

So where will our current Top 10 be in thirty years? Some would say it’s foolish to speculate, but on the basis that the best predictor of the future is the past, I’ll have a stab at it. That’s how I do my footy tipping anyway.

The average time that a popular girl’s name spent in the Top 100 was 46 years, which means about half the girls’ names from the current Top 10 are contenders for staying in the Top 100 until 2042. Of the names from 1982 which have lasted, Sarah and Emma had a long history of being on the charts, while Jessica was still gaining in popularity. Based on that, I’d say classics Charlotte and Amelia have the best chance for being stayers, while another Shakespearean coinage, Olivia, could keep going and going.

Chloe, Isabella and Sophie seem as if they will at the very least remain relatively stable in the 100s, like Rebecca, Michelle and Lauren. I’m picking Ava to be the Nicole of our times (200s), and Sienna to be another Melissa (300s). Because Lisa was the least successful name, and a cute nickname form of a longer name, perhaps Mia will also not fare so well long term. Ruby and Kate are retro names that have gone in and out of fashion, and I think both are quite unpredictable.

As far as the boys names go, chances are that 90% of them will still be in the Top 100 by 2042. I’m picking Joshua to be the name that doesn’t go the distance, as it is currently in the same decline that Mark was in 1982. Two of the names from 1982, Benjamin and James, are barely outside the Top 10 today, and I would back Ethan and Lucas as the most likely to mimic that success.

Results are unscientific and for entertainment purposes only. Baby Name Mythbusters is not affiliated with the television show, “Mythbusters”.