I will mention that, depending on context, what might appear is āProbably Good Career Adviceā, which is clearer (though still doesnāt fully optimize for clarity).
Yeah, that helps with the first āissueā I raised.
Though reading that sentence made me realise another potential issue with the name (or maybe another thing that was subconsciously part of my initial aversion to it but): I think it sounds to me quite tongue-in-cheek and non-serious, in a way that might not be best for your aims. (You note the ātongue-in-cheekā-ness later in your comment as a positive, and I think it can be sometimes, but in this particular case I currently think it may be more likely to be negative.)
If someone directed me to āProbably Good Career Adviceā, it might sound like either some sort of joke/āprank/āspoof, or something that was real but the name of which is sort-of a joke. And I might assume it was set up by people who are still in college. (It maybe feels like the sort of name the Weasley brothers in Harry Potter wouldāve come up with.)
So if what Iām after in this context is advice on how to maximise my impact on the world, I might think these people probably arenāt the sort of people whoāll be addressing that serious question in a serious way. I think this would actually be true for me, and Iām only 24 and did stand-up comedy for several yearsāi.e., Iām not a very āserious personā, but Iāve got my āserious personā hat on when Iām first engaging with a new org regarding how to make my career impactful. I imagine this issue might be more pronounced on average for people who are older or āmore seriousā than me, which includes a lot of potentially impactful people.
This is different to e.g. 80k having some tongue-in-cheek parts of some articles or podcast episodes, because thatās not the very first thing someone will see from 80k, and itās always just a part of a larger thing thatās mostly focused on impact. With the name Probably Good, thatās essentially the first thing someone will see from the org, and itās not just a part embedded in something else (the name is like its own thing, not a sentence in an article).
But itās totally possible a higher proportion of your target audience would be attracted to than pushed away by the tongue-in-cheek-ness of the name; Iām just going by my own reaction, which is of course a minuscule sample size.
This is the risk we were most worried about regarding the name. It does set a relatively light tone. We decided to go with it anyway for two reasons:
The first is that the people we talked to said that it sounds interesting and interested them more than the responses we got for more regular, descriptive names.
The second is that our general tone in writing is more serious. Serious enough that weāre working hard to make sure that it isnāt boring for some people who donāt like reading huge walls of dense text. We figure itās best to err on the other side in this case.
Yeah, that helps with the first āissueā I raised.
Though reading that sentence made me realise another potential issue with the name (or maybe another thing that was subconsciously part of my initial aversion to it but): I think it sounds to me quite tongue-in-cheek and non-serious, in a way that might not be best for your aims. (You note the ātongue-in-cheekā-ness later in your comment as a positive, and I think it can be sometimes, but in this particular case I currently think it may be more likely to be negative.)
If someone directed me to āProbably Good Career Adviceā, it might sound like either some sort of joke/āprank/āspoof, or something that was real but the name of which is sort-of a joke. And I might assume it was set up by people who are still in college. (It maybe feels like the sort of name the Weasley brothers in Harry Potter wouldāve come up with.)
So if what Iām after in this context is advice on how to maximise my impact on the world, I might think these people probably arenāt the sort of people whoāll be addressing that serious question in a serious way. I think this would actually be true for me, and Iām only 24 and did stand-up comedy for several yearsāi.e., Iām not a very āserious personā, but Iāve got my āserious personā hat on when Iām first engaging with a new org regarding how to make my career impactful. I imagine this issue might be more pronounced on average for people who are older or āmore seriousā than me, which includes a lot of potentially impactful people.
This is different to e.g. 80k having some tongue-in-cheek parts of some articles or podcast episodes, because thatās not the very first thing someone will see from 80k, and itās always just a part of a larger thing thatās mostly focused on impact. With the name Probably Good, thatās essentially the first thing someone will see from the org, and itās not just a part embedded in something else (the name is like its own thing, not a sentence in an article).
But itās totally possible a higher proportion of your target audience would be attracted to than pushed away by the tongue-in-cheek-ness of the name; Iām just going by my own reaction, which is of course a minuscule sample size.
This is the risk we were most worried about regarding the name. It does set a relatively light tone. We decided to go with it anyway for two reasons:
The first is that the people we talked to said that it sounds interesting and interested them more than the responses we got for more regular, descriptive names.
The second is that our general tone in writing is more serious. Serious enough that weāre working hard to make sure that it isnāt boring for some people who donāt like reading huge walls of dense text. We figure itās best to err on the other side in this case.