The Social Security Administration should release the 2008 US Top 1000 in a few days. It’s sort of like Christmas-meets-the-Fourth-of-July here at AppMtn.
Plenty of parents turn to the rankings as part of choosing a baby name. You’ll often hear expectant moms and dads mention that they’re avoiding the Top Ten. Or Top 100. The question is, though, are the statistics a meaningful guide for determining a name’s popularity?
In 2007, Jacob was the #1 choice for boys, representing a staggering 23,886 newborns given the name. At the opposite extreme, Trystan came in at #1000, representing just 191 babies. But is Jacob so horribly overused that you’d regret choosing it? Is Trystan so rare that you’d never meet another?
Here are ten things to keep in mind as you consider Jacob, Trystan and every name in between and beyond:
10. Variant spellings change everything.
In the US, the Social Security Administration ranks every spelling separately. You might find Trystan an appealing choice – and at #1000, imagine that he’s quite rare. Trouble is Tristan – the most common spelling – is a Top 100 pick, given to over 5,000 boys in 2007. Tristen adds nearly another 1,000; Triston and Tristin another 500 each and Tristian 300 more. All of a sudden your unusual name is closer to the Top 50.
9. Sound alikes can make an uncommon name feel Top Ten.
Nameberry’s article on MegaName said it best: any name that’s got lots of close relatives is bound to feel far trendier than you’d guess by gauging the popularity of that name alone. Jaylon might rank #556 for boys and Kayley #838 for girls – but shout ‘em out on a playground, and chances are that Jayden, Kaylee, Hailey, Kayla, Mikayla, Braylen, Braden and Caiden will answer, too – along with maybe Kadence and Brady.
8. Popularity over time matters, too.
Let’s say you’re trying to find a name that is familiar, but that your daughter won’t share with other girls in her class. You settle on Megan. At #78 in 2007, odds are that she’ll meet other Megans – but unlike Madison or Emma, she probably won’t have a same-named classmate. Except that in 2004, Megan was the 36th most popular choice for girls born in the US. In 1997, she was #11. And she’d been on the edge of the Top Ten since the 1980s.
Megan’s name could actually feel increasingly common as your daughter enters college and the working world – and has more friends and colleagues five, ten and fifteen years her senior. Likewise, your daughter might be the only kindergartener called Megan, but her babysitter and your boss’ teenager might share the name.
7. A crystal ball would be nice.
The flip side of #8 is that names that are gaining in popularity can be just as frustrating. Let’s say your darling daughter is turning ten. You went searching for a familiar-but-seldom-heard name back in 1998 and landed on Ava – then ranked #350. That would be the year before Reese Witherspoon named her starbaby Ava.
While we can’t guess the moniker of every future celeb sprog or fictional character, it is worth paying attention to a name’s pattern. After all, Ava had already leapt from #618 to #350. In 1999, she’d climbed to #259 and by 2000, she was at #180. That’s a pretty clear sign that a name is hot – and could be a chart-topper in a few years. Of course, for every Ava, there are dozens of names that climb, but never become nearly as common.
But add together #8 and #7 and here’s what you get: Don’t just look at a name’s rank in the most recent year. Look at the name’s pattern over time – it’s easy to search on the Social Security Administration’s site.
6. Consider nicknames, even if you don’t plan to use them.
Maybe you want to avoid the most popular choices and land on a nickname-proof appellation, too. Bella, you think, would be perfect. She ranked #159 in 2007. Trouble is, she’s also among the most common nicknames for chart-topping Isabella. And plenty of parents have opted for Annabel, Arabella or another -bel name and use the nickname, too.
5. Location, location, location.
Sure, Jacob was the #1 name in the US. But it can be useful to check out the statistics in your home state. In 2007, Aiden was the #1 name in Alaska. Michael still topped the charts in Connecticut. Iowans love Ethan; Texans are all about Jose. And in North Carolina, William is tops.
4. Did I mention location?
Not only are do popularity stats vary by state, but there’s a big difference between naming preferences in, say, Detroit and Alpena. Both are in Michigan, but one is the very definition of an urban center, while the other borders a marine sanctuary.
This one is difficult to track via statistics, but I’ve always thought of it this way: if it is easier to hop on a bus or train than face parking in the local city center, odds are you may have more leeway in terms of the names you choose. Of course, you could leave Park Slope for small town Vermont when Atticus and Casilda hit grade school. But you get the idea.
3. Friends are important, too.
How often have you heard two friends squabble over a favorite baby name? Or someone kvetch that her sister-in-law stole Natalie? It’s undeniable that people we love – and live near, and work with – tend to have similar taste in baby names. That can amplify the most popular baby names – we know a few Emmas, an Ava and an Emily – but sometimes less common picks feel Top Ten in our circles. My boys’ Top Ten would include Charles, Theodore, Zachary and James.
2. Any ranked name is relatively common.
Ever checked out the footnote on the Social Security Administration’s website? About 74% of all children born in a given year receive a Top 1000 name. The percentages are consistently higher for boys and lower for girls – but with every passing year, a smaller percentage receives a ranked name. Back in 1998, nearly 80% of all children could’ve found their name listed.
It’s also true that “not currently in the Top 1000″ doesn’t mean it was never in the Top 1000. Even on a site like this one, relatively few names are completely missing. Pomeline, Rosamel, Adlai and Alvar are a few that do fit the bill.
1. Virtually every name shows up in census records.
Unless you’re going to name your child Urgablatzigria – and you aren’t, are you? – you will probably find that someone, somewhere has shared the name.
I love the rankings. I’ve crunched the numbers, compared them to timelines, sought out trends. But as we await the coming wave of data, glorious data, it is worth remembering that all those numbers don’t always add up to much.
I can hardly wait for the new stats. I should be in bed, sleeping. Alas, I’ll be getting 3 hours of shut-eye tonight assuming I go to bed right now. I’m Christina, and I’m a name addict.
LOL, Christina – right there with you!
Very interesting! Your point about checking a name’s ranking over time (and watching for the BIG jumps) is a great tip. And you’re right that a name can feel increasingly popular if it has dropped in popularity recently. I’m more convinced than ever that the perfect name is one that peaked at #150ish in the 1920s! One that everyone is familiar with it but no one uses it these days.
I generally divide the number of babies by the number of states, Like when I was pregnant with Josephine. She was born at the end of May, about three weeks after the 2004 stats were released. In 2003, (which the stats were for) 1,334 Josephines were born. Divide that by 50 states and that averages 26.58 (or 27) Josephines per state. A mere pittance compared to say, Oliva that year. At #4, 16,076 Olivias were born, equalling 321.52 (or 322) Olivias per state. Now, I don’t care how popular the name gets After I name the kid, but I’d like to get a small idea of how many they may end up with in state. Grammar school, High school, maybe in another state. I find that average comforts me quite a bit. My favorite place to seach for names are the census records! Second favorite? the Family tree. The maternal line now goes back to 1540. What a wealth of names for me to sift through!
Now that’s another interesting study, Wrenn … I wonder how many names peaked at #150 in the 1920s?
I’d love to see the results of that study! I’ve looked at the numbers some. I like Lyle which peaked at 145 in 1918 and Eloise which peaked at 164 in 1921. Naomi went to 131 in 1921 then fell all the way to 423 in 1969. But since then she’s been on a steady rise and sits at 124 in 2007. So, I’d stay away from Naomi (and others on that track) and go for Lyle or Eloise which still appear to be falling in popularity.
Lola, that’s a neat little math trick. I wonder if it works, or if certain names are over-represented. Hmmm … it’s a great guesstimate, anyhow!
And I am SO jealous of your family tree. 1540! I can barely trace back two generations!
I am feeling the pain of #10 with little Elaina, who has name that sounds just like the higher-ranked Alayna, and it sounds a lot like Elena– not to mention Elayna and Alaina. We’re already running into little girls on the playground with names that sound the same but are spelled differently.
And, then there’s point #9– Lilia (my second youngest daughter) is not ranked very highly, but with all the little girls named Lily and Lillian in her school, her name feels really common.
These steps are great
Lola, I’ve never considered that logic before! I guess one of the perks of living in a country of 21 million people and a land mass not that much smaller than the US (which has how many people living there!?), is that a name doesn’t necessarily seem too popular, even though it is. Did that make sense?
Our #1 for my state (2nd largest pop. in country) was Mia in 2008. Only 493 girls in my state were given the #1 name. Makes me feel a little better that Matilda has shot to the height she has so quickly over the past 5 years! I know the percentages would be very similar, but the numbers are less horrid! Just as our #100 name – Eden – was only given to 55 girls last year.
Using you rlogic, Wrenn, proved great for me
We Australians suck, and the stats for my state only go back to 1929, and only the top 100, so I picked from down the bottom. (90 – 100 ish). By this logic, I’d have named my kids something like Josephine, Isabel and Frederick. Lovely 
Eh, none of that made much sense, reading back on it – sorry!
Sophie, The USA, according to the Census figures, estimate 304,059,724, as of July of 2008. I just got my paperwork for the 2010 census yesterday though! But you folks have almost all of your numbers on the edges, there’s not much in the middle of your vast continent. We’re all over the place!
Do you have a link for Austrailian stats? I’d love to try to figure out how common Matilda is really amongst your 21 million. We only go back to 1880, so it’s not that much further than you folks, really. not quite 50 more years. Your top 100 though, that’s pitiful. I realise part of the reason SSA here takes so long to get the info out is that it’s such a huge undertaking to catalogue and filter. This is the number of boys who had applications for SSA 2,150,808. And the girls: 2,055,373 for a total of 4,206,181.
And Verity, I can’t take credit for most of that work, My cousin Joseph (the one 2 years older than me) is the main person working on all that. he revels in it all and just emails me the whole thing once a year as he updates it. Lucky me!
I hadn’t thought about #8 exactly how as a child gets older, their social circle expands to include many more age groups.
But the trend thing is one reason I love BabyWizard. While Finn is currently ranked relatively low (380?) It has rapidly risen in popularity, making me wary.
And Wrenn,
by your logic “Delbert” is the perfect name!! Peaked at 149 in the 1920′s and I think it’s fairly safe to say has faded since then!!
And for a girl, Marcella – which works much better.
Arrgh- I just wrote a whole thing and accidentally deleted it! I’ll just put in the bridged version now..
That amount of people is insane!! Matilda sat at #13 in 2008 in Vic, and there were 284 born.
Here’s the link for my state:
https://online.justice.vic.gov.au/bdm/popular-names
I’ve tried to search for a national list, but usually all I can find is a Top 10 list that only includes New South Wales data, which isn’t representative at all. For example, Alice is #40 in Vic, whilst in NSW she’s only at #97. I’m seriously considering gathering and collating all of the data from all of the states and compiling as close to a Top 100 as I can! I know for sure that either Olivia or Ella is our #1 girls name, and Jack or William is the #1 for boys.
I know that the South Australian site offers the Top 100, as well as listing all of that names that were used in a particular year, and the number of babies bestowed with the name. They’re a really small state though – their #1 name – Kaitlyn – was only given to 17 babies! However, Saskia was #183!
There’s the link for that one..
http://www.ocba.sa.gov.au/bdm/babynames.html?gender=female&orderby=amount&year=2008&showsize=100&searchpart=&submit=Find+Baby+Names
PS – sorry if you don’t allow links to be posted!! I forgot to check first
Pingback: The Name Game - NYTimes.com
I know this was written a super long time ago, but it’s Alpena, Michigan, not Alpina.
Thank you! My daughter’s godfather’s wife – no, really, we’re very close – is from Alpena, so I am changing it immediately!