Catching up with my awful backlog of RSS feeds, it’s interesting that I should find this post now that I’ve just rebooted my website/blog under my own name. Surat Lozowick writes:
Online, your name is your brand, so this makes sense. But a blog named after its author doesn’t say anything about subject matter, which can be both negative and positive — a thoughtful name can define the topics to cover, but it can also restrict them. […]
As it’s something I’ve been considering recently, I decided to ask some of the bloggers I follow: eponymous or not?
I enjoyed reading the answers, and I find the words of Aaron Mahnke to be the closest to the ones I’d use to answer that question myself. He replied:
I find that the best blogs in the world are incredibly focused. They touch on two or three general topics at the most, and rarely stray from them. It provides depth of content for readers to return to time and again, and it gives the writer something to focus their inspiration around. Whether you name the blog after yourself, or with some random name, really doesn’t matter nearly as much as the quality of your content, how relevant it is, and the uniqueness of your “voice”.
As for me, after naming my first blog Autoritratto con mele (“Self-portrait with Apples”), and then using names like The Rizland Observer or The Quillink Observer, I decided to just drop titles and taglines and name this site after my name because, above all, I needed a broader scope. I didn’t want to be identified with just another Mac guy who writes a blog, and then, since here I write both in English & Italian, I didn’t want for my website to have a title that only one of the two groups of readers would understand.