That was my first attempt at one of Rand's SEO comics, so hopefully I did the Boss Man proud. I really don't have much to offer in this blog post except DEAR GOD, these social media sites' names are getting totally absurd. Seriously.
What happened to the good ol' days of MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and LiveJournal? Remember those happier times? When the name of a site indicated what it was? From there it started to get a little rid.iculo.us (I checked, and that URL currently isn't a site, so we're safe...for now...): there's Etsy, Wazima, Darmik, Django (was his name-o?), Mochikit, Zoto...they all sound like characters from The Dark Crystal. Or like Scientology overlords.
I get the whole "Web 2.0 Sexy Explosion! Strike while the iron's hot!" mentality, but what separates the Woozles from the Wazzles from the Kreblaks from the Zoomubys from the Noonoos? (Yes, I made all of those words up.) It seems like young entrepreneurs caught wind of the notion that if you create a company and give it a weird name and launch it during the Web 2.0 craze, you're bound to become a household name, regardless if you have a means to monetize it; hence, Jane has a list of a bazillion sites to go through for the Web 2.0 Awards, who all think they can get away with offering a crap service because their name is hip and clever.
As Syndrome put it in The Incredibles, "When everyone's special...no one is."
What happened to the good ol' days of MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and LiveJournal? Remember those happier times? When the name of a site indicated what it was? From there it started to get a little rid.iculo.us (I checked, and that URL currently isn't a site, so we're safe...for now...): there's Etsy, Wazima, Darmik, Django (was his name-o?), Mochikit, Zoto...they all sound like characters from The Dark Crystal. Or like Scientology overlords.
I get the whole "Web 2.0 Sexy Explosion! Strike while the iron's hot!" mentality, but what separates the Woozles from the Wazzles from the Kreblaks from the Zoomubys from the Noonoos? (Yes, I made all of those words up.) It seems like young entrepreneurs caught wind of the notion that if you create a company and give it a weird name and launch it during the Web 2.0 craze, you're bound to become a household name, regardless if you have a means to monetize it; hence, Jane has a list of a bazillion sites to go through for the Web 2.0 Awards, who all think they can get away with offering a crap service because their name is hip and clever.
As Syndrome put it in The Incredibles, "When everyone's special...no one is."
The Web 2.0 startup name checklist:
Did you:
1. Remove a letter - Flikr, Roketboom
2. Use a double letter - 'oo' or 'ee' - Squidoo, Newroo, Digg
3. Switch a consonant - Zillow, Zoho, Plazes, Extate
4. Ask a 4 year old - Riya, Trulia, Wotif, Opodo
5. Add a 'social' word as a suffix - youtube, myspace, mychurch, wikia, wikiseek
Let's run SEOmoz through the checklist:
1. SEOmz, SOmoz
2. SEOmozz, SEOmooz
3. CEOmoz, SEOmos,
4. Seemo, Somuz
5. Mymoz, Metamoz
When all 5 rules combine, you get myEmoo! - web 2.0 social marketing for the emo generation!
PS. 37Signals, we need an Enormicom 2.0!
For some reason Seemo made me laugh quite a bit...
Moo - cows. Cows are funny. Seemo is thus funny.
Case in point?
Joey on defining a "moo" point - "It's like a cow's opinion. It doesn't matter. It's moo..."
ha. that was always one of my favorite quotes from joey! and i'm not really a fan of friends. the show, that is.
"Are you going to the zoo? Supposably..."
You may be my new hero. That was rad.
When I come across words like "Riya" and "Trulia" my brain wants to try and pronouce them as though they came from a language other than English. Like, "Trulia" should be pronounced trueea or something, as if it were Spanish. Riya looks like it should be Russian. Then I remember that it was made up over cappuccinos in Silicon Valley. Or Seattle.
> 4. Ask a 4 year old
if almost spraying coffee out of your nose when you read something isn't a compliment, i don't what is ;)
And you could use it to sell this amazing toy!
I think in the spirit of Web 2.0 crazy names, I will start one, if it's not already taken and call it "ooCrp." We'll be like Yahoo Answers but just listen to people bitch and complain. Oh wait, that's what personal blogs are for. Nevermind.
I love it!
Boohu probably isn't taken yet, is it? The Livejournal for people whose lives suck more than those who already post on Livejournal. Wait, haven't we been in this territory before? Abort! Abort!
Hey, wait a minute, are you insulting LiveJournal users? That's it; I'm going to go post on my LiveJournal about how mean you are.
* types angrily *
It's funny how we're all so mean about Livejournal when there are a gazillion other blog hosts that house content that's just as bad. If you write mean stuff about me on your L.J, I'll log on to my Blogspot account and write a fourteen paragraph epic about how stupid you are. So nerrrrr.
Sadly, if I spent five minutes ranting about you on LiveJournal and linked it back to SEOmoz, Google would pick that up 10X faster than a post on my professional blog that I spent half a day on.
I'm not sure if we should be happy that Google don't give a hoot about many of the blogs out there (they don't care much for my other website :P), or if we should be displeased that the strength of one blog can push around millions of other ones.
When I step back from my own ego, I do realize the value of Google's cautiousness towards blogs, especially new ones (and I even see why sandboxing might be a good idea), but I agree that trust gets thrown around a little too lightly on the big sites. Just because tens of thousands of people link to LiveJournal or MySpace doesn't mean that every single post should get a ramped-up trust level.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the web 2.0 name generators...
Wow. https://www.lightsphere.com/dev/web20.html is gold:
Skimbo, the p2p software where skype meets bimbos!
Mybuzz, the social network phenomenon that consists of me, myself and I!
One case FOR all the stupid names is that it's much cheaper in terms of buying a domain $6 vs. 6 figures until someone figures out if the project is actually WORTH anything. You can start something innovative on a stupid sounding name, and pony up the dough for the real .com if the site takes off. Imagine the cost of dig.com vs. digg.com. Flicker.com vs. flickr.com etc. Since domainers are often crazy (in terms of what a domain is worth) is has caused the ripple effect of extra (or no) vowels for branded .com real estate.
Of course a successful 2.0 site that then ante's up for their branded traffic only reinforces the lotto winner mentality of domainers with one word .coms, and keeps the vicious cycle spinning.
I see your point and think it makes sense, but at what point are you far-reaching for any sort of correlation between your name and what you do, simply because the domain was cheap? If I'm a new social networking site, would I want to be called BigDonkeyBalls, simply because it's cheap and available?
LOL. I am SO tempted to buy that domain now. No idea what I'd do with it, but it's just so darn funny!
I see a logo comprised of a donkey standing next to 2 large beach balls. ;)
>If I'm a new social networking site, would I want to be called BigDonkeyBalls, simply because it's cheap and available?
The main issue is branding - it is taking a good kicking (and though I'm coming around, I will take every opportunity to kick it while it's down), but still alive. BigDonkeyBalls could be easily branded, and is easily memorable, so why pony up the dough in startup mode for bigdonkey.com or donkey.com? (domainers OWN EVERYTHING - don't believe me - try finding a single word domain prefixed with "my"). Branding is secondary now. Even a single word domain is only as good as the idea behind it, but can ride a lot further.
I think stupid names are great, because it helps us dot commers to kick the "branding guys" in the teeth. There's still SOME validity to branding, but the cop outs have been exposed. I can call my insurance or loan company bigdonkeyballs.com if I rock more than geico, and have a great new idea. I can brand my idiocracy for staying power later. Even geico is not branded geico - they're the gecko and caveman guys.
>would I want to be called BigDonkeyBalls, simply because it's cheap and available?
Yes. The 100k is much better used for great development to build the foothold to the marketplace. You can find a great branded domain later when the money will justify it. Besides, big .com domains already SOUND corporate because we all know how much they must have PAID for them.
The point is the idea is more important than the branding. A company can always get bought out (go corporate) and re-brand later with a great idea. It doesn't take a lot of money to market a great idea. It takes A LOT of money to "build a brand"
The idea behind idiotic names is simply that - THE IDEA. If it gets traction you can buy branding later (it might cost a premium, but that's what ridiculous valuations and VC money is for)
Call your great idea adfadfadf if it's good - web 2.0 is about being viral and starting a conversation - if you're good enough, people will learn to copy and paste the url if it's worth their while, and FIND ways to tell their friends why it is special and different - that or they will find other ways and never even type it in.
Web 2.0 names ARE really dumb - but if you have an exceptional idea - you can stave off paying for branding until you're past startup mode.
What if you pick the name BigDonkeyBalls, but you're a children's learning software company? ;)
Remember Mole Station Nursery (molestationnursery.com) and its poorly-named friends? It reminds me of a family I knew who named their son Richard Head. There was another who initially called their kid Noah Hope until they realised how that sounded. I believe they re-named him Jonathan.
...and in Ireland you had the deputy PM - Dick Spring - which may not be a common epithet on this side of the pond, but it is in the UK.
There are limits, though. An insurance company can run a silly branding campaign, but the brand itself absolutely has to be respectable, solid, and grown up. Same thing with a bank.
Geico can play around with the gecko, the cavemen, Little Richard, or Charo, but they know they can't actually use that as their brand in the long term. GEICO is (or was, anyway) Government Employees' Insurance Company.
If you're starting a new insurance or financial services company, you're just not going to get very far giving it a name that can only be seen as silly. A neologism is likely to be silly to some, but you can make claims about it being a portmanteau of of Greek or Latin roots meaning something solid and reliable yet swift and flexible. That can work, and you can make fun of your name in some of your advertising. If the company's name is Big Donkey Balls, it simply won't survive in that market.
People will put their life's savings in the hands of Intrepid Financial Group even if their ads include their mascot, a big stupid donkey that drools on everything. They're not going to trust their money to Big Donkey Balls National Bank.
Tell that to Esurance,and remember to Honk for Fonk!
For some reason, I have fallen for the GEICO cavemen. The dude in the airport who says, "Well apparently not because I'm looking right at it (sign of caveman)" and "Hold on; it's my mother. I'll put her on speakerphone" are my favourites. It's silly, but it's working for them.
The gecko, on the other hand, annoyed the life out of me.
ABC has given the green light to a sitcom pilot about the Geico cavemen, so I guess they're hoping a lot of people have fallen for them. Of course, the whole thing is just a twist on Phil Hartman's Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer.
"He used to be a caveman, but now he is a lawyer...Unfrozen Caveman Laywer!"
"I'm just a caveman..."
I miss Phil Hartman :(
I wanna see the Gecko consoling the Caveman. :-)
"Look at it this way, Mate: you're gettin' your own TV show out of it, eh?"
Personally I can't stand the c-list celebrity ones, the Gecko & Cavemen ones I like (although the cavemen are starting to turn into the taco bell chiuaua, not long before they get to be too much to stomach)
Damn right - and it doesn't have to be a made up word to be stupid. Remember the late 90s craze for giving perfectly good companies new brand names, with real words, but absolutely no relevance to what they did?
I know that I certainly don't like Mondays
Ich bin nicht ein ITZIE! Du bist ein Itzie!
I was totally kidding, but wouldn't it be awesome if this blog managed to coin a word... IN ANOTHER LANGUAGE?!
Late last year, I started doing a blog post entitled "Dumbest Web 2.0 names of 2006". About halfway through, I gave up in disgust at the human race. Fortunately, I've found scotch cures that.
Of course. Didn't you know, it's a cure all ;)
I thought I was the only one who felt that way...good to know I'm not alone :D
Amen Dr. Pete. Scotch and online marketing have gone hand-in-hand for me since '03!
Web 2.0 or character in star wars?
Hah, I scored 40 for that quiz. I knew reading Star Wars novels instead of studying for university finals would one day come in handy.
Oh god that's sad :(
Thirty-three. I've never been into Star Wars, but I've spent more than enough time going through Web 2.0 sites...
Coining a word is not an easy task. Coining a word for a company name that becomes a household name is even harder. Without considerable resources to accomplish this task (or enormous amont of luck), most of these 2.0 names will vanish without a trace. I'm not even sure if it'll be a like the .com "buble burst". I suspect it will be more like a "silent buble deflation". Or a woopie cushion sound.
"pfffffffttttttt......"
LOL. Genius...
Yeah, okay, some of the names of Web 2.0 efforts are ridiculous, but many of your supposed examples of this are pretty poor. Django, for instance, named after Django Reinhart, is instantly familiar to anyone who listens to jazz. Mochi is a very common Japanese snack. Wazima is the name of a city. They all come from languages other than English...so what? That hardly means they sound like "something from the Dark Crystal", nor can they be accused of being particularly cutesy or "special", except by the most ethnocentric of critics. They can hardly be put in the same league as your made-up names.
But perhaps your objection is that they don't indicate anything about the company or product. Well, neither does Saturn, or Exxon, or Fuji. What about Starbucks? What does Moby Dick have to do with coffee? Haagen-Dazs is a completely made-up word. Kodak...totally made up. Novell means nothing, even if the original suggester thought it did. And these are some of the most prominent brands in the world. (And why is wayfaring a bad name for a mapping site? Wayfaring simply means travelling...seems like a pretty direct association to me.)
You could do the same thing for many of the most famous product names in existence. It seems that branding is an art that goes well beyond putting two words together that describe your business or product, and if many of the Web 2.0 companies haven't mastered it, the author and commenters on this thread are clearly not in any position to offer any insights, either.
How are my made up names any different? I could easily assign some sort of trivial meaning behind them...let's see, Kreblak is named after founder Joe Kreblak, and it's a Javascript library, just like Mochikit. There. Does it make a difference?
I'd also argue that the name of your brand matters more than you imply (as indicated by Matt's post about Freebase).
> How are my made up names any different?
Your names *do* sound like they're from the Dark Crystal, that's how they're different. My initial point is that Django and Mochikit are distinguished from nonsense words because they are at least drawing on associations that many are familiar with, even if they have nothing directly to do with the product. In fact, it's de rigeur to name certain products in this way. Consider the class of automobile names that are just "generally pleasing" words: Accord...Alliance...Civic...all built on associations with things not having anything directly to do with the product.
>let's see, Kreblak is named after founder Joe Kreblak, and it's a >Javascript library, just like Mochikit. There. Does it make a difference?
Great example. Many of the world's greatest brands are built on just this kind of tenuous connection. Chevrolet, Colgate, Firestone, Honda, Kroger, McDonald's, Nestle.
If you aren't up in arms about "Apple" making _computers_ named "MacIntosh", how can you possibly find MochiKit to be objectionable just on its face?
I'm not saying that these Web 2.0 companies have great names. Nor am I saying that a company name is not important. Far from it! What I am saying is that branding is far more subtle of an art than you give it credit for. And it doesn't take much looking around to see that. The objections that you raise about many of the Web 2.0 names, as I show, are broken all the time by well-established brands that are now household names, beloved by many and on the tip of the tongue of millions. You bring up a lot of names of real products, but the reasons that you suggest they're bad names simply aren't true, given the evidence.
(I think we're both in agreement that having a product name with strong negative preexisting associations, like Freebase, is potentially bad. But that doesn't apply to any of the real or mythical Web 2.0 product names that you mention.)
So what _is_ the qualitative difference between Cadillac or Caprice and Django or MochiKit as product names? Is one of them better than the other? Why? How do these reasons corellate to brands in other industries? Is successful branding in the internet space subject to different rules than outside? These would be interesting topics for an article. I'm just suggesting that you dig a little deeper.
That's a matter of opinion. I think the "legit" business names sound silly, and you think my made up ones sound city. It's all subjective.
It's all a matter of what you get used to. Heck, it probably won't be long before we leave the confusing made up names of web 2.0 and head back to acronyms.
Exxon, Saturn and Starbucks are also pretty silly names. Starbucks has nothing to do with coffee. "Wayfaring" may mean a lot to you if you know its meaning, but it's not nearly as intuitive a name as Mappr or Trippermap. Does the website name Wazima bring to mind a coupon site? Because that is what wazima.com is about.
SEOmoz = Open Search Engine Optimization community, as is implied by its name. T-Mobile = mobile phone company. Staples = office supply store.
> Exxon, Saturn, and Starbucks are also pretty silly names.
This is exactly my point: correlation between the nature of the product of a company and its name doesn't seem to be required for successful branding. And yet you can't consider something "a good name" independent of its potential for branding success!
So what, then, is they key to a good name? Now that is an interesting question, one worth spilling ink on.
(I do, btw, consider Wayfaring to be a much better name for a mapping site than Mappr or Trippermap. The former has strongly positive connotations of wanderlust and the longing to travel. Wayfaring actually has the strength of a traditional brand. It's not Web 2.0-like at all. And not everyone needs to know what a word means for it to turn into a successful brand.)
So what, then, is they key to a good name?
Ease of memetic propagation.
Look. As someone who's spent the better part of the last two months trawling Web 2.0 sites for our Web 2.0 Awards, I find the majority of Web 2.0 names to be repetitive, highly unoriginal and an insult to the intelligence of those people who bothered to make up good names.
Starbucks? The original founders were Moby Dick fanatics. They originally wanted to call the business Pequod, except that didn't test well.
When Starbucks first came to New Zealand, I thought it was named such because celebrities had stakes in it and it was making them big bucks.
Treezy! Kiko! Reetzy! Ardonsta! Guumoo! Bebo! Itzie! Numsum! Loofu!
Which ones are real sites and which did I make up? And which ones are racial slurs in Indonesia?
HINT: (one is definitely a gender slur in Germany.)
Scheisserface?
Hugh-jass and Hoof Hearted would be good ones!
Your post got me thinking, Rebecca. But, is Biznik really a totally absurd name?
Yeah, a friend sent that to me :)
From the perspective of an SEO whose coworker has been throwing together the Web 2.0 Awards and has been subjected to hundreds of similar-sounding odd names, yes, Biznik sounds silly. Once you explain the method to your madness, though...
I'm going to take every name mentioned in this post, register it and just sit on them.....someone has got to want to buy one eventually for 6 figures, no?
But I really don't get the trend. It works, but you need a lot of money for branding and other marketing efforts. A small start-up would have a hell of a time becoming a household name.
And I HATE adobe's Kuler. I can NEVER, for the life of me, remember that damn word!
You kan't remember kuler? But kuler's the kul kulor tul! What kud be more memorabul?
I do miss the simpler times. I'm surprised that there isn't an "iSEO" anywhere to be found. (I'll take the credit for that one). And no, I don't mean the "Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils". (Believe it or not, that actually exists). Guess I'll have to call my next 2.0 project "Shmooz Wookie 2.0" or something along those lines.
I think YouMOZ hits the nail on the head!
Touche. Well played, sir.
You know what, I think we can blame the Teletubies for kicking off our Web 2.0 name explosion. All those names could easily be introduced to an episode with an audience of three year olds.
I mean seriously, Noonoo (the metalic scrubber/silly vacuum noises machine)?
Wait... you mean there is no correlation between success and how made up your company name is??
Ah shipple! I better go back and reread my web2.0 guidebook.
Actually, for now it is just amuzing... once the investors start thinking this, that's when it's time to watch out.... again.
A bit late to this pist but couldnt resist: wonder what the story is behind: https://myfacebook.com/
?????
It looks like someone registered that domain just to sit on it in hopes of creating something later... and never has.
Since Web 2.0 sites are often named with words that are missing vowels, I was thinking of going completely vowelless (assuming that's a word) by registering "vowelless" without vowels: vwllss.com. It's actually available if anybody wants it.
lol vwllss.com could be a good keyword research site...
I though https://supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.com/ would be a great domain name - only to find that a squatter is sitting on it! damn there goes my social media site on people with the love for very long nonsensical words! would have been a sure fire network!!!
I recognized Woozle. Did a quick search for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woozle
It started before teletubbies. Nonsense words have been around for a long time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabberwocky
We can go further back than that:
lol. Good one! I should have waited and not edited my post.
Yeah, but I can't get it to format properly.
I thought of another one...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraken
I actually own GreenKraken.com. It was this imaginary Scottish kung-fu bookstore we invented in college. Don't ask...
I memorized that poem in 2nd grade and still remember it word-for-word.
Lewis Carroll was Jack The Ripper you know.
You can go back to Shakespeare if you want since he made up a significant number of the words in his plays.
In fact isn't a part of language the ability to create new words?
Neologisms, sure. In fact, I have a client company that makes up names for things. If you've got a couple hundred thousand to spare, I can give you a referral.
But it's pretty rare for a word that was created as a brand to find its way into the dictionary. It happened with Google, even though they didn't want it to. I don't know of any Web 2.0 names that have become anything more than company names. Not yet, anyway.
"Hey, that's a great picture. Do you plan on flickring* it?"
*flickr: to publish a photograph in digital form on a web page in order to make it accessible to many people.
I can practically see the church lady stopping on her tracks with inquisitive look on her face... Something is not quite right about that one. :)
That's true. Most brands aren't going to become part of the language, though there are certainly a few even pre-web ones like xerox and kleenex. I think we just figured it out. Your brand simply needs to end in 'x' and it'll be a success. Who wants to alert the masses?
You're absolutely right though that most will never become part of the language. I think people see that the few that do make are very successful and then they somehow think in order to be successful the made up word is a neceesity. Somehow they forget that it was the company's innovation and succes that made the brand what it is, not the other way around.
This is true: Shakespeare coined many new words. Some Web 2.0 words are pretty cool - I think Reddit is genius. If the name or word tells you something about its meaning or what it does, then it's great. I have serious beef with idiotic names like Ziki and Squidoo (even though I think Squidoo is great) because they don't mean a thing.
Good Web 2.0 names:
Drivl (it's drivel)
MySpace (it provides a space that's yours)
ProjectStat.us (it lets clients view their project's status)
SeatSnapper (users snap up available seats to shows)
iStockPhoto (they stock photos)
Bad Web 2.0 names:
Minti (parenting advice)
Zimbra (open source email software)
Wayfaring (maps)
Sometimes it's really hard to understand what someone was thinking when they named their company. I'll be the first to admit that I'm horrible when it comes to names, but I think even I could do better than some of these. I'd at least pick a word that had something to do with my product or service.
del.icio.us is another. What does that have to do with bookmarking web pages. Makes a lit of sense for something food related, but bookmarks?
To add to the good list how about StumbleUpon. Pretty accurate description of what the site is all about.
My favourite obscure website :
Zombo.com
This website transcends Web 1.0, 2.0, to infiniti and beyond.
Um, is that all it does? Just kind of flicker like that?
Oh, I think that really is web 2.0 in a nutshell.
I wunder if the PPC costs les for thise twiddlewrot 'keywerds'...mmm
PPC: 'bebo' has a bid prais | 'Roketboom' dus not.
I bet ther are sum oportoonitys lerkin here for cheapowierdowordos. lol
The Twitter trend is worse. You have the service, Twitter, and there's the "TwitterClub" by Scoble, who also seems to have coined the word "TwitterBait." You could even sing a song about Twitter: twitterdee, twitterdum, twitter my thumbs... the possibilities with that one are just endless. :)
Twitterdum indeed.
I'm drinking a Pepsi!
I'm picking my nose!
I'm bored!
I'm on the phone!
I'm looking at my toenails!
I'm checking my bank balance!
I'm looking at my toenails again!
I'm hungry!
I'm eating!
I'm still hungry!
Twitter - the club for Twits
My husband already called me one. :P
Twitter is quite simply a stupid word. It's like naming a website "dither" or "blether."
But it's catchier than the other Web 2.0 names. You really can make even more creative variations off the Twitter name. Flickrific? Maybe you can do that, but that's about all I can think of.
Don't laugh. I sold Kadoink.com last year on Afternic. That might be the best way to make money from the 2.0 craze. Of course, I reinvested the profits from the sale in a bunch of 3.0 names.
omgzzz awesome web site.!
miml is the new word.
Did you guys do that comic yourself?
Great! Here I was thinking I was unique...
Oh well.
Yeah, Mystery Guest drew the pictures and I slapped on the text.
Whoops, didn't know you were still there.
Anyway, did Mystery guest use Illustrator to trace over hand drawings or what, because it's really clean and I'm trying to get that effect with my stuff.
-Clif
Apparently MG drew them, Rand scanned them and traced over them, and then has been using Flash to add the captions. According to Rand, it took forever.
Okay, I got to get back to work, but obviously, I can't write, storyboard, pencil, pen, scan AND trace, and caption.
Yeesh, something's got to give. Okay Thanks. See you guys tomorrow. Look forward to another post.
I have a good friend that was doing a lot of drawing and comics for a while. He was doing it with sketches first and then tracing over it, but then we bought him a drawing tablet and that made the process a million times easier. I guess it took him some getting used to but from what I hear most people in that business don't even use a mouse anymore once they get used to the tablet.
was he still doing sketches then tracing over it with the tablet or did he just draw straight into the computer?
It's not that I couldn't do that, but MAN, it would feel unnatural