Usernames
Facebook just announced that they’re going to be opening up a new can of worms in a couple of days, allowing each person to claim a username. It’s kind of a big deal, a potential game-changer for Facebook, as they’ve always resisted the username trend to ground their user base in actual identities, in real names. I’m quite interested to see how else they choose to use these usernames down the road.
It got me thinking, though … starting nine years ago, when I first registered http://webel.net, I’ve tried to keep things simple by going with the username “webel” on various services (i.e. Twitter, Flickr, etc). Short and sweet, you know? But now I’m starting to wonder if that’s really the best strategy.
If I changed my username to “lancewebel” on all of these services, for example, it would do a couple of things … first, it’d allow me to have a standard name that’s always available (so I wouldn’t have to fight with my own relatives). Second, it’d be much more search-friendly … anyone entering my first and last name would be more likely to find me if both of those were in my URL/information.
But it wouldn’t be all short-and-sweet anymore. 
Hmm. I guess I have a couple of days to decide how to handle this from here on out, ’cause once I choose a Facebook username, it’s permanent. What do you think … should I go with “webel” or “lancewebel”?
June 10th, 2009 at 1:38 pm EST
I’ve been using andyshafer for all mine. i.e. Gmail, Flickr (url, not username, unfortunately), et cetera, and am totally fine with it. Of course, had Shafer.com been open and I had based my usernames on that, it’d probably be a different story.
Here’s something to consider - Random Man says to himself, “I wonder what ‘ol Webel is up to these days? What’s ‘ol Webel’s first name?” So he does a Webel search on Facebook, and since there’s no first name attached to you, he messages you and says, “Hey! Is this ‘ol Webel from the class of ‘38? It’s me, Random Man!” But if you’d had Lance in front of there, he’d have weeded you out and you wouldn’t have received the message. But I guess everyone would like to speak with Random Man. So maybe it wouldn’t be so bad.
And that’s my coherent, logical argument, leaving with with a decisive answer.
I think Facebook is making a mistake. The real name is what makes the service unique. Now we’re going to be getting fartinurface336, and that’s just irritating.
June 10th, 2009 at 2:25 pm EST
I doubt that Facebook would be dumb enough to use these usernames as the primary mode of identification … they’ll probably just be used on the margins (in the URL, etc). And I have a sneaking suspicion that they’ll eventually be giving actual email addresses (username@facebook.com) to everyone, as more of a ubiquitous way of connecting Facebook to the rest of the world. Just wait.
Yeah, I’m leaning towards lancewebel. That’s me, after all.
June 10th, 2009 at 2:40 pm EST
Ah, I see. That makes more sense.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:51 pm EST
You know - usernames are rough. I picked impetuously picked mattmc3 back in 1997 ass my AOL IM screen name. Then, I had to register mattmc3@ everything - whether I used the service or not. Basically, I had to squat on every service because I don’t know what I’ll want to use and I certainly don’t want someone posing as me. Hotmail, yahoo, ICQ, gmail, blogspot, and everywhere in the middle I’m mattmc3. Except, when someone else gets it before me somewhere, it’s really annoying and I have to be matthewmc3. The only place I refuse to register my user name is twitter because tweets are for twits. Pick your name… common aliases are a PAIN!
June 10th, 2009 at 9:53 pm EST
Oh… so sorry for the typos
June 12th, 2009 at 10:39 am EST
Andy’s first comment says it all. Use lancewebel. You are right, it is “you,” after all. I have been “hpwebel” for eons, and it works splendidly for me!
June 13th, 2009 at 12:41 pm EST
“lancewebel” it is.