Baby-name remorse - Page 3

glatt · 01-03-2008, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigV

as for the 400/susan thang... I still don't agree/understand.

I read the link and page stuffs.. My understanding is that the name Susan is the 400th (I accept your rounding, fine) **most popular name** for the given period.

Not that there were only 400 people named Susan for the given period.

See the cached Google page I linked to. The formatting is all messed up, but it lists the ranking of the name, the name, and then the number of times the name was used. Look for the phrase: "For a girl Name Gender Times used Favorites"

Number 1 is Emily, and it was used 25,494 times in 2003.

Number 514 (not 511 as I stated above) is Susan, and it was used 550 times in 2003.

Look for the phrase "1 Emily 25494" and then later "514 Susan 550"

I know it's a sucky link to support a figure, but it's the only list I found that included more than the top 100 names for 2003. There are many more sites that will confirm the number one name in 2003 was Emily and was used 25,494 times.

glatt · 01-03-2008, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

This baby name wizard is one of the best flash apps I've ever seen. Enter "susan" at the prompt to see how the name came into usage and then fell out of favor.

I love that site.

aimeecc · 01-04-2008, 09:06 AM

The number is "usage of (name) per MILLION babies." So, it would be 550 million Susans. A popular name is Ethan, and its #4, with over 5 billion babies born in 2005 with that name. Although 550 million sound like a lot, its only 10% of the number of Ethans.
My son's name has grown in popularity over the last few years, and in 2006 there were ~440 million Miles, ranked 202. Still a lot better than 5 billion.

monster · 01-04-2008, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aimeecc

The number is "usage of (name) per MILLION babies." So, it would be 550 million Susans. A popular name is Ethan, and its #4, with over 5 billion babies born in 2005 with that name. Although 550 million sound like a lot, its only 10% of the number of Ethans.
My son's name has grown in popularity over the last few years, and in 2006 there were ~440 million Miles, ranked 202. Still a lot better than 5 billion.

5 Billion Ethans born in the USA in 2005? I don't think so.....
5,000,000,000?

United States
Population: 301,139,947 (July 2007 est.)
from here

Population Clocks
U.S. 303,168,757
World 6,641,883,975
15:28 GMT (EST+5) Jan 04, 2008
from here

glatt · 01-04-2008, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aimeecc

The number is "usage of (name) per MILLION babies."

Ignoring the math mistakes later in the post, I can find no indication from the site I linked that the figures are "per million" babies. The word "million" doesn't appear on that site anywhere. The similar sites I linked to that have only the top names for that year also don't mention the figures are "per million" babies. Where did you see that?

In 2005, there were roughly 4 million babies born in the US, so you can multiply that number by 4 if it's true. Or 2,200 Susans in the country. But I see no proof it is true.

monster · 01-04-2008, 09:44 AM

If figures are given per million, in order to know how many babies that is, you need to know how many million babies were born in the year and multiply by that figure, not multiply by one million. (4.1 million in the US seems the most reliable figure I've found). The site UT links to is per million. But the site glatt links to gives usage, so 550 is the answer (according to that site), not 550 per million

monster · 01-04-2008, 09:44 AM

hah! I got distracted and beaten!

glatt · 01-04-2008, 10:23 AM

Where's that beating a dead horse icon?

To really belabor the point, in the Flash based site that UT linked to, the statistics are per million, and the graph for Susan, pasted enlarged below, appears to show there were 100 Susans per Million births. So you multiply by 4.1 and get 410, which is only ten more babies than I estimated way back in post 21.

Worship me, and my mad estimating skillz!

aimeecc · 01-04-2008, 10:35 AM

Ok, my ability to do math is completely off. Thanks for the correction! lol

monster · 01-04-2008, 11:10 AM

you should probably run for president, aimee

monster · 01-04-2008, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monster

hah! I got distracted and beaten!

oops, wrong thread?

aimeecc · 01-04-2008, 01:09 PM

Well, I did invent the internet... lol

jinx · 01-04-2008, 04:43 PM

My name was 318th the year I was born, and got all the way up to 33rd in 1991 (that's when it started appearing on personalized stuff - long after I actually wanted barrettes with my name on them).
My daughter's name is not and never has been in the top 1000. No barrettes for her...

wolf · 01-05-2008, 12:20 AM

My name was a leader at the turn of the century (ranked at 33) and then fell out of favor in the 1940's for some reason, but is now making a bit of a comeback.

Interesting.

classicman · 01-05-2008, 01:55 AM

my name is average and boring.

01-04-2008, 09:44 AM	#36
monster I hear them call the tide Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Perpetual Chaos Posts: 30,852	If figures are given per million, in order to know how many babies that is, you need to know how many million babies were born in the year and multiply by that figure, not multiply by one million. (4.1 million in the US seems the most reliable figure I've found). The site UT links to is per million. But the site glatt links to gives usage, so 550 is the answer (according to that site), not 550 per million __________________ The most difficult thing is the decision to act, the rest is merely tenacity Amelia Earhart

01-04-2008, 09:44 AM	#37
monster I hear them call the tide Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Perpetual Chaos Posts: 30,852	hah! I got distracted and beaten! __________________ The most difficult thing is the decision to act, the rest is merely tenacity Amelia Earhart

01-04-2008, 10:23 AM	#38
glatt ™ Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 27,717	Where's that beating a dead horse icon? To really belabor the point, in the Flash based site that UT linked to, the statistics are per million, and the graph for Susan, pasted enlarged below, appears to show there were 100 Susans per Million births. So you multiply by 4.1 and get 410, which is only ten more babies than I estimated way back in post 21. Worship me, and my mad estimating skillz! Attached Images

01-04-2008, 11:10 AM	#40
monster I hear them call the tide Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Perpetual Chaos Posts: 30,852	you should probably run for president, aimee __________________ The most difficult thing is the decision to act, the rest is merely tenacity Amelia Earhart

01-04-2008, 04:43 PM	#43
jinx Come on, cat. Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: general vicinity of Philadelphia area Posts: 7,013	My name was 318th the year I was born, and got all the way up to 33rd in 1991 (that's when it started appearing on personalized stuff - long after I actually wanted barrettes with my name on them). My daughter's name is not and never has been in the top 1000. No barrettes for her... __________________ Crying won't help you, praying won't do you no good.

01-04-2008, 09:06 AM	#33
aimeecc Super Intendent Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 249	The number is "usage of (name) per MILLION babies." So, it would be 550 million Susans. A popular name is Ethan, and its #4, with over 5 billion babies born in 2005 with that name. Although 550 million sound like a lot, its only 10% of the number of Ethans. My son's name has grown in popularity over the last few years, and in 2006 there were ~440 million Miles, ranked 202. Still a lot better than 5 billion.

01-04-2008, 10:35 AM	#39
aimeecc Super Intendent Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 249	Ok, my ability to do math is completely off. Thanks for the correction! lol

01-04-2008, 01:09 PM	#42
aimeecc Super Intendent Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 249	Well, I did invent the internet... lol

01-05-2008, 12:20 AM	#44
wolf lobber of scimitars Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phila Burbs Posts: 20,774	My name was a leader at the turn of the century (ranked at 33) and then fell out of favor in the 1940's for some reason, but is now making a bit of a comeback. Interesting. __________________ wolf eht htiw og "Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception." --G. Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island High Priestess of the Church of the Whale Penis

01-05-2008, 01:55 AM	#45
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	my name is average and boring. __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)