Category: 2013 baby names

Best Names Near the Bottom of the List

By Elizabeth Broadbent

Everyone loves to look at the Social Security Database’s name list. We usually scroll to the top to see what won as the most popular names (for the record, it’s Noah and Sophia). But with everyone combing their brains for a unique name these days,it’s best to check the bottom instead. Here are the top picks from the 50 least-common names of 2013.

Read More

pet names

There’s less and less difference between pet names and baby names.

The most popular puppy names of 2013, according to the website Vetstreet, include a lot of names trendy for babies: Bella, Daisy, and Sadie for females; Max, Cooper, and Jack for males.  Kitten names are also trending increasingly toward the human: Chloe and Nala, Oliver and Charlie.

All kinds of pets from hamsters to goldfish are more likely to be called by baby names these days than by a moniker like Fluffy or Fido.

And then there are the names formerly reserved for pets that are starting to be heard more and more on human babies: Bear and Coco, Bandit and Buster and Bo.

Read More

popular baby names

by Pamela Redmond Satran

When the 2013 US Popular Baby Names list came out back in May, we ran Kelli Brady aka The Name Freak‘s wonderful Playground Analysis blog, with her count of the REAL Top 50 baby names. Kelli tallies all spelling variations of the top names to arrive at their actual rankings, which puts Aiden et al instead of Noah at Number 1 for boys, for instance, and bumps Jackson (and Jaxen, Jaxon, and Jaxson) up to Number 2.

Our focus is usually on which names are MORE popular than you’d think when you add in all their spelling variations.  The idea is that parents want to be forewarned when they’re likely to hear their favorite baby names far more often than they’d guess based on the official rankings.  Zoe and Aubrey, counting all spellings, are actually in the Top 10 for girls, for example, while Kayden and his many near-identical twins rank not at Number 93 but at Number 9.

But what about those baby names that are LESS popular than they seem judging by the official statistics?  Parents may veer away from some names, both classic and modern, that are actually somewhat more distinctive than they appear.  I’m not talking about names that are a couple of rungs further down the ladder, based on Kelli‘s analysis, but those that are significantly softer by our own subjective measure.

The point is: If you’re shying away from these baby names because you believe they’re too popular, maybe you owe them a second look.  They are:

Read More

One of the most interesting things to check out when a new Social Security list appears each year is which names have cracked the Top 1000 for the first time, and this edition saw quite a few particularly cool examples. Some, not surprisingly, popped on via a pop culture/celebrity  connection, some reflect some more widespread trends, while others are the inevitable spelling variations (yes, you, Jurnee and Kamdyn) that might prove to be one-time wonders. Here are 12 new names most likely to have staying power:

Read More

The just-released Social Security list includes over 1400 brand-new names, given for the very first time to five or more babies in the US.

As you might imagine, most of these names are pretty far out on the ledge.  There are lots of kree8tiv spellings of more conventional names: Finlea and Massyn, Londonn and Karsan.  There are names from around the world freshly introduced to America: Junhao and Mokshith and Motoki.  There are original combo names — Charlotterose and Marcusjames — and there are new word names and place-names and surname-names — Revelation and Tokyo and Thoreau — and there are even a couple of wonderful old names revived for the modern world: Hypatia and Thisbe, Romilly and Calisto.

But all these newborn names look downright sedate compared to a handful of choices it’s hard to believe were given to even one baby, much less five….or ten….or 63.

They’re the Most Outrageous New Baby Names of 2013.  Here are our picks for the wackiest of the newest, along with the number of babies who received each in the US last year:

Read More