Possible Duplicate:
Write an Elevator Pitch / Tagline


We are closing this domain naming thread. It is asking the entirely wrong question. See this blog post for details: Domain Names: Wrong Question

We're going to keep the name cooking.stackexchange.com. But we WILL be setting up redirects from the more "popular" domains names (e.g. seasonedadvice.com to cooking.stackexchange.com, basicallymoney.com to money.stackexchange.com, and others as we go through the list).

New question: "Write an Elevator Pitch / Tagline!"

Click here to contribute ideas and vote.

[original message text below]

Post your ideas for a dot-com domain name for this website, which captures the spirit and intent of the site, namely:

{name} is for cooks, chefs, and anyone who can make a dish that can objectively be described as “mean”.

Please follow these guidelines:

  • Check to see if the domain is taken or squatted before making the name suggestion. Squatted and taken names, however clever, are not helpful. You can use whois.net to check availability.
  • Post one domain per answer. This makes the voting process much easier. If domains are very similar (e.g. "game" and "games"), they can be in the same answer.
  • Make sure the domain wasn't already suggested. To search within this question, use a search query such as: inquestion:1 "example.com" replacing example.com with the domain to search for.
  • 4
    How exactly do we expect these domains to remain untaken if they get popular here? Is meta. currently visible only to the closed beta? If so, I guess we're probably OK. – derobert Jul 10 '10 at 14:12
  • Jeff said that this needs to be discussed only during the closed beta, and decided upon before the end of it. – MJeffryes Jul 11 '10 at 10:24
  • 1
    Enough negative votes? – Lee Jul 13 '10 at 6:08
  • does squatted mean registered to the likes of godaddy.com? Or only things which come up as available in the whois.net search valid? – Sam Holder Jul 14 '10 at 10:49
  • What's with all the xoverflow.com's? – Brendan Long Jul 17 '10 at 16:12
  • @Brendan Long The original site of this kind was called "Stackoverflow" and was a programming Q&A site. From this a few other sites were spawned, before "Stack Exchange" was created, which is the means by which this site was created by the community. – Edd Jul 20 '10 at 13:26
  • @Edd, I know about StackOverflow, I'm just wondering why 90% of the suggestions are almost exact copies of that name. The whole point of "the new stack exchange" is that each site has its own identity. – Brendan Long Jul 20 '10 at 23:53
  • @Brendan Long - I know. Personally I'm not going to vote for any stack or overflow (except maybe waffleoverflow, assuming it stands no chance of actually winning) – Edd Jul 21 '10 at 9:36

66 Answers 66




  • +1 I like this one. – codeinthehole Jul 20 '10 at 16:15
  • This one rose quickly! As long as someone in this community is the one that owns it (GoDaddy says: seasonedadvice.com is already taken. It was registered today.), I think we may have a winner, – Dinah Jul 21 '10 at 3:29
  • A WhoIs Lookup has it registered to Stack Overflow Internet Services, so it looks like the community has it available if this is what we want to go with. – Ben McCormack Jul 21 '10 at 11:43
  • Looks like we definitely have a winner. How high does an answer have to be voted to clinch it? Somewhere between 30-50 votes perhaps? Or are we supposed to wait until the end of the beta? – Aaronut Jul 21 '10 at 19:33
  • 2
    I think we wait until the end of the beta – Sam Holder Jul 21 '10 at 21:10
  • 11
    This can be ambiguous. Seas one dad vice - It is hard for me to see seasoned advice in that string. – jjnguy Jul 21 '10 at 21:22
  • 1
    I agree that we should wait until the end of beta. – Ben McCormack Jul 22 '10 at 1:34
  • 5
    Most of the time you would find the domain in print would be as SeasonedAdvice.com. When spoken, you would say Seasoned Advice as two words. Ambiguity is not so much an issue when first telling someone about the domain (though, to be sure, it can be), but rather it is most important that the resulting domain not be ambiguous and have avoid having an entirely different meaning. For example, "seas one dad vice" is hardly meaningful; "KitchensExpert," which can be miscontrued as "Kitchen Sexpert," has an altogether different meaning that ought to be avoided. – Ben McCormack Jul 22 '10 at 1:38
  • +1: Wow. Great choice. This is the first one I haven't voted down. – hobodave Jul 22 '10 at 5:09
  • 3
    @Justin - I saw "Seasoned Advice" in the text straight away, context helped somewhat. I suspect that if someone's searching the 'net for something cooking related and sees "seasonedadvice.com/........" as a result, there's a fair chance they'll get the "humour" of the domain name :) Oh, and +1 for the domain! – Rob Jul 22 '10 at 9:54
  • 1
    It would be a great choice if advice were actually allowed, but it really seems like everything remotely subjective is being voted down and closed and considered off-topic. Questions without a single accepted answer are considered bad questions. – Cade Roux Jul 24 '10 at 18:29
  • I removed the capitalization as second level domain are lowercase only. This is what the user would actually see. – Wizard79 Jul 27 '10 at 9:34
  • 2
    @Cade Roux, you can get an objective advice from someone. Advice is not necessarily subjective. – Mike Sherov Aug 4 '10 at 23:19
  • @rob, yeah, the context helps, and I really like the pun (or w/e it is) I just want everyone to remember expertsexchange... – jjnguy Aug 26 '10 at 14:30
  • 1
    You will not get seasoning advices on this site as it would be banned as subjective and argumentative, so this is a misguiding name! – Wizard79 Aug 29 '10 at 11:03


A few years ago I saw a refrigerator magnet that says, "Never trust a skinny cook." Ever since then, I've thought there should be a cooking community/site/whatever called Plump Cook (plumpcook.com is available.)

  • 1
    Aside from the fact that I've known many an amazing skinny cook, I love it :) – Daniel Bingham Jul 18 '10 at 8:49
  • 3
    I like this. Infinitely memorable. Completely unambiguous. Easily identifiable for what it is. – Robert Cartaino Jul 22 '10 at 3:41
  • It's difficult to understand for a non native English speaker (I bet most non native speakers don't know that plump means fat). fatcook.com would be universally understandable, but of course it isn't as nice. – Wizard79 Jul 30 '10 at 7:40
  • How many readers do you think are non-native speakers? (seriously, I'm curious what your estimate is). It might be worth the slight loss of translation in order to have a very charming and memorable name. But thanks for adding the minority/global perspective. – Ocaasi Aug 4 '10 at 3:05


A few notes here. We really don't know if we have any professional chefs here, or if we will ever get them. We do know that we've got plenty of computer geeks who also happen to cook. If we take a name that implies real chefs and don't deliver, that might not be so good. This name, on the other hand, is likely to just keep pulling in geeks who happen to cook. And those people are, In my opinion, the likeliest to master the mechanics of the stackexchange platform and make the site go.

  • 2
    I like this one, it fits the theme of StackOverflow and ServerError, in that it is a common issue that someone might have. – MJeffryes Jul 11 '10 at 10:23
  • 11
    On the minus side, I don't think it has quite the positive connotation of bounty and expertise that, say, SuperUser entails. What perhaps makes StackOverflow and ServerFault work despite the "problematic" nature of their names is that they're terms that you have to have a computer background to fully parse, hence terms that portray the technical literacy of their communities. – Owen S. Jul 11 '10 at 22:10
  • 1
    Re geeks vs pros: I think there's a point to that, which is why I wouldn't go with, say, chef in the name. But have some faith in your fellow geeks! I think the q&a so far have been of excellent quality, and demomstrate plenty of knowledge on the subject. – Owen S. Jul 12 '10 at 17:07
  • 1
    I dunno, having over-spiced food is rarely a problem for me! How about "UnderSeasoned.com"? (It appears to be a defunct blog...) – Harlan Jul 13 '10 at 11:07
  • 6
    I don't think the theme of StackOverflow is even a little relevant to the naming of a food Q&A site. We should be looking for something that works for food, not a clever connection to SOflow. – Tim Sullivan Jul 19 '10 at 15:15
  • Re the premise outlined above, that "we really don't know if we have any professional chefs here...", I really hope that we do get them. No offense to my fellow geeks who arrived here from StackOverflow, but I really hope that this cooking site attracts experts and professionals in the domain of food and cooking. The educational wisdom and insight afforded by a professional is hopefully leaps and bounds above what a mere food enthusiast should provide. That doesn't say much about the suggested name in this answer, but I disagree strongly with the premise. – Ben McCormack Jul 20 '10 at 19:24
  • @Ben: frankly, and sadly, I doubt this will ever be a community of experts and professionals chefs. This is a cooking Q&A site built, run and used by IT geeks, and this is obvious looking at its format, layout, procedures, and content... – Wizard79 Jul 29 '10 at 8:51
  • Too bad it can't be OldSpice... – Ivo Flipse Aug 5 '10 at 18:46
  • @ziggamorph serverFAULT – Midhat Sep 1 '10 at 16:55


  • 3
    I know I'm nit picking here, but with respective to chopping, doesn't "diced" imply "coarse?" The name sounds good but it doesn't really make sense. – Aaronut Jul 14 '10 at 14:19
  • I think it depends on how big the dices are :) – jumoel Jul 14 '10 at 14:53
  • 1
    Diced > Chopped > Finely Chopped. Finely Diced? I don't think that makes sense. – Ben McCormack Jul 14 '10 at 17:40
  • to me Diced implies shape (cube) and uniformity not size. Chopped implies less uniformity to me. but chopped could be large and uneven (roughly chopped) or very small (finely chopped) – Sam Holder Jul 14 '10 at 18:33
  • 1
    Well, you have now coarsely chopped this suggestion. What can I tell you? It just sounded good to me, and 11 people apparently agree. – bmargulies Jul 14 '10 at 19:49
  • 4
    That's a very cleaver play on words. – Aaronut Jul 15 '10 at 3:29
  • 3
    -1: This name is very difficult to understand for non native English speakers. – Wizard79 Jul 17 '10 at 20:01
  • @Lorenzo: Just curious, why is it so difficult? – hobodave Aug 5 '10 at 17:04



  • 3
    The team should grab this one ASAP. It's short, catchy, easy-to-remember, clearly about cooking, and (IMO) speaks to professionals and home cooks alike. I'm surprised that it isn't already taken. Even if we don't end up using it, I'd hate to find out at the last minute that somebody squatted it while it was posted here. – Aaronut Jul 18 '10 at 18:37
  • 6
    I read it first time as "Me and ..." and then realised my error and had to re-parse it. I think it is also fairly US-specific, as whilst in Britain we would know what it means, we wouldn't use the term "mean" as much as I understand it is used state-side. I think we'd have to check whether other regions would also understand (especially those from where the users have English as a second language). – Edd Jul 20 '10 at 13:20


An icon of experience as well as a metaphor for attempting to give advice ("let me put my chefhat on...").

Appears available or squatted but not in primary use.




  • 1
    I'm happy to report spoiledbroth.com is open for business as well. :-D – Owen S. Jul 11 '10 at 21:58
  • 8
    As in, I got 99 problems but being a cook ain't one? – Mike Sherov Jul 12 '10 at 21:49
  • 4
    Does 99 qualify as too many cooks in the kitchen? – Gabriel Hurley Jul 13 '10 at 7:59
  • 1
    @Mike Sherov: I got 99 problems but a kitch(en) ain't one. I'll be here all week, folks. Tip your waitress. – Dinah Jul 14 '10 at 1:32
  • 99cooks.com seems taken to me... – Sam Holder Jul 14 '10 at 10:52
  • @Sam: I think team policy is to register any likely candidates so that they don't get "stolen" during the beta period. See Jeff's response on MetaSO here. – Aaronut Jul 14 '10 at 18:27
  • 1
    I don't like the "99"... what does it means? Why not 88cooks (like the Crazy 88 from KB) or 69cooks (like the 69 sex position)? – Wizard79 Jul 15 '10 at 15:37
  • @Lorenzo: why not 69cooks? Gee, I don't know. That wouldn't possibly make people think it's anything other than a cooking related site. – Dinah Jul 18 '10 at 22:28
  • Too many cooks spoil the broth. The faq should say "Get half of them out of the kitchen". – Arlen Beiler Jul 19 '10 at 16:22
  • 4
    Everytime I see a RandomNumberPlusAWord.com domain name, it seems like an attempt to piggy-back on the easy recognition of sites like 37signals or 43folders. I could go without seeing another RandomNumberPlusAWord domain name. That's not to say those sites aren't easily recognized, but I think we can do better. – Ben McCormack Jul 19 '10 at 16:33
  • 1
    I strongly dislike 99designs, so no. – codeinthehole Jul 19 '10 at 16:52
  • The key to the number/word names is a) that the number is random and b) that the second word is generic but not bland. Cooks is bland. Folders has some interest to it (what's in the folder? hints at organization) (signal refers to signal/noise ratio, a key concept in programming/communication). If this were to work it needs a better number and a better word. As is it just says "a lot of cooks". 101chefs might be more interesting, if it doesn't suggest amateurs. – Ocaasi Jul 28 '10 at 16:39
  • @Ocaasi: 101chefs.com. Sounds good. Try suggesting it. – Robert Cartaino Jul 28 '10 at 16:57
  • What about 99chefs.com It's more, chef-y, and available too. – Ocaasi Jul 28 '10 at 21:38


Well, it's available not in use...



Available. Perfectly captures what is going on with this site.


Chef Complete





Butter is delicious. Clarified is refined. And explained. And mainly chefs do it.

edit: 'It's not exactly available'. Maybe clarifiedcook.com, clarifiedchef.com, or clarifiedkitchen.com



(Too geeky, I know, but too bad a pun not to share)

  • 11
    I'm not upvoting this but it's indeed a nice one :) – UncleZeiv Jul 18 '10 at 8:47



  • Preparing food "to taste" is a sign that your cooking skills have gone beyond merely following a recipe. There's also a slight double entendre in that the name could be interpreted as "food to be tasted," but experts in the domain of cooking are familiar with the phrase "to taste," so the name hints at something beyond simple food preparation. – Ben McCormack Jul 14 '10 at 15:44


More than a hundred says a lot.
101 says, learning and open to beginners.
Chefs says, aiming for expertise not just recipes.

It's available.



(or hardboiledcook.com)

  • 1
    Sounds very Dashiell Hammett. – Eight Days of Malaise Jul 9 '10 at 23:09
  • Perhaps softboiledchef? – Ocaasi Jul 28 '10 at 16:34


I'm aware that the domain is currently registered, but it appears to go "nowhere" other than a "Sponsored Listings" page at present, so the StackExchange bods might be able to procure it.

It's clear, concise, pun-free and would have fairly immediate appeal in search results. If I was google/bing-ing "how do I cook a rare steak" and the first or second result was from "howtocook.com", I'd probably go straight for that one!





techchef.com (or cheftech.com)

both available



Self-explanatory. Chefs. Networked.

It's available... (squatted landing site).

  • 2
    Squatted != available, unfortunately. – Aaronut Jul 28 '10 at 19:23
  • Aren't those sites typically open to conversion (purchase). They're all over the place... how much do you think it could cost to grab one? – Ocaasi Jul 28 '10 at 20:03
  • 1
    If the beta is successful and the owner gets wind of why somebody wants it, it would cost a lot. The reason people squat these domains is so they can hold anyone who wants them hostage. – Aaronut Jul 28 '10 at 20:52
  • Well, if it makes the short-list, it might be worth finding out what the cost is. Definitely before the final vote. – Ocaasi Jul 28 '10 at 21:36


(for sale, godaddy)

edit note: other brainstorms were moved to comments, since this is the only one that received vote-interest

  • FYI, we're looking for domains that aren't registered, so no squatted / parked / for sale domains. – Aaronut Jul 28 '10 at 20:51
  • i might extract cheftastic.com – mfg Aug 17 '10 at 15:43
  • @mfg will do. feel free to vote on it, although there's something close to consensus on this page already – Ocaasi Aug 17 '10 at 22:26
  • TastyChef.com (for sale), SousChef.com (squatted), Chefshelper.com (for sale), – Ocaasi Aug 17 '10 at 22:27

How does


sounds to you?

(yes, it's available)


Alas, toomanycooks.com is squatted.

So, I see, is tomanycooks.com.



is available!



emphasizes variety, tools, flavor

edit: not available, though variations might be


So I've been thinking about the focus of the site, and how we want it to be about techniques rather than recipes so with that in mind the following are all available, on a similar theme and in the order I prefer them.

  • cookerytechnique.com
  • cookstechniques.com
  • cooktechnique.com
  • what about: cooktech, cheftech, kitchentech, foodtech, or inversed (techcook, techchef, techkitchen, techfood) – Ocaasi Jul 29 '10 at 20:35

techfood.com (or foodtech.com)

both available


spicyquestions.com (available)

Kind of like seasonedadvice, but different. Not as 'misreadable' as seasonedadvice. More intriguing (IMHO).

  • Relevant to cooking (obviously), relevant to questions, name suggests an interesting site

  • Cooking's more than spices alone, the wrong kind of 'spicy question' may be inferred at first glance (good? bad?).

Related, but less strong (IMHO): saucyquestions.com

Edit: I notice seasonedadvice has already been registered by SO. I'll leave the suggestion here for posterity though.



Stovetop Buffet: The Cook's Q&A

Available, and the ascenders make it easy to read.




  • boo-hoo. was i down-voted because this is similar to the regretsy motto, or because i failed to mention the similarity? – mfg Aug 19 '10 at 18:44



  • Sounds like a store.. – Brendan Long Jul 17 '10 at 16:09



Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .