The Great Rebranding of ProWebmasters Stack Exchange

Question

This post is an official follow-up to Mike Ciffone's meta post here:
Does ProWebmasters Need to rebrand?

Some community members here have expressed a desire to rename our ProWebmasters Q&A forum to something that sounds more modern, as the term "webmaster" can be seen as dated or "old-school".

Stack Overflow staff has given us the go-ahead to officially gauge community sentiment around the renaming through this meta post.

Please share your thoughts on whether we should move forward with a rebrand, and if we do, what name we should rebrand ProWebmasters to.

---

For reference, here is the forum's current nomenclature:

• Page Title Elements: "Webmasters Stack Exchange"

• Network-Wide Site Name: "Webmasters"

• Site Banner Image: "ProWebmasters"

• Subdomain: "webmasters.stackexchange.com"

Staff mentioned that they are not currently committing designers to design site banner images, so we have the option of either keeping the current banner, or changing to a default text banner^[1].

^{[1] See Ethereum Stack Exchange for an example of a community with a default text banner.}

Answer 1

Although updating the name "Pro Webmasters" to be more modern and reflect current terminology might seem like a good idea, it shouldn't be taken lightly:

Firstly, all of our search engine results refer to our name as either "Pro Webmasters" or "Webmasters", and so do a large number of posts & comments on this site, posts & comments throughout the Stack Exchange network, text & links in the Help pages of other Stack Exchange sites, as well as external blogs & sites that mention us... Trying to update all of that would be a massive undertaking.

Secondly, because of the above, the URL would likely need to remain the same: webmasters.stackexchange.com, and a new name wouldn't match that.

Thirdly, Stack Exchange indicated that a custom design isn't currently possible and the banner would be changed to a default one.

The above would obviously lead to some confusion and lack of continuity for visitors. Rebranding a site also typically requires a lot of marketing and advertisement dollars to overcome the loss of name/brand recognition already established, which we don't have.

I'd suggest that if we did change the name, that we keep it short and congruous with the name that we've had for over 12 years. For example, shortening it to just Webmasters would seem to make sense. One thing to consider is that if a term becomes less popular, it could become more unique over time (a characteristic of a good brand), and have less of a connotation as being outdated to people who weren't around during the heyday of its usage. Perhaps we should own and capitalize on that by changing our name to WebMasters (i.e., shifting it slightly from a job title to being "Masters" of different areas of the web). Both of these would require no changes to our inbound and internal links, and would be less confusing to visitors.

We should also take into consideration the popularity of terms and topics people are searching for. When it comes to naming, in the past on Meta we've used Google Trends to indicate that. So for sake of comparison, here is the term Webmaster vs. Web Administration. Clearly the latter isn't very popular or being searched for very often, however "Webmaster" still is.

My concern is that we should be careful not to rename the site just for sake of "rebranding", or from something that we're well-known for to another term that's unknown and not commonly being used. I think that would just end up confusing users because we used to be Webmasters, but now we're calling ourselves by an even less well-known and used term. In that case, we should make the change to something less noticeable and more of an actual brand change than just a name change (see my alternative answer).

Lastly, we should make sure that changing the site's name would be the decision of the entire community as much as possible, and not just a few currently active members. Many of our community members sign-in monthly or even less frequently due to low activity on the site. We'd therefore need to establish how a "consensus" would be defined, and how long this discussion on Meta should be given so that it's viewed by the majority of active members and so that everyone has had a chance to chime in and make their opinions heard.

Answer 2

(For the record, I don't feel strongly about rebranding or not rebranding. I am just adding an alternative thought that I had which should be considered as part of the discussion).

Do we actually need a great rebranding?

The central premise of this discussion is that "webmaster" is an outdated term and we should somehow modernize the label we give the role of the user this site is meant to represent. "Webmaster", "Web Admin(istrator)", "Jack of all trades". Webmasters are "old school".

That's fair. I agree that the term "webmaster(s)" is an outdated term and the "old school" response was not surprising. I also am in the camp that the "Pro" in "Pro Webmasters" has to go. But do we need a complete rebranding to accomplish this?

Dan's points about SEO and site design are quite valid. We also don't know if a rebranding will have any material impact in site participation. We just think it will. That's a lot of change (some of it like the generic site design is an obvious step backwards) for gains that we don't have concrete evidence will come as a result of those changes.

Is there a smaller change we can consider as an alternative to a major rebranding?

For example, although a new site design is not an option, maybe a new banner is. If so, can we keep our current subdomain and site design but just change the banner to include a new site name that better represents for whom this site is for? It rebrands the site without all of the overhead of a new (boring) site design and repercussions of changing URLs. All we'd need to do is agree on what to call the site and humbly ask for a new banner from our gracious overlords. If that change brings positive results we could always revisit whether additional changes would be beneficial to the site.

Answer 3

My naming idea is to rebrand ProWebmasters to Web Administration Stack Exchange.

This name has the following advantages:

• The term "Web" feels descriptive enough to effectively communicate the topic of this Q&A forum, without feeling so restrictive as to discourage any of the subjects in our on-topic guidelines.

• Unlike another natural candidate, "Website Administration Stack Exchange", "Web Administration" feels slightly more inclusive of on-topic website-adjacent subjects such as email administration, hosting, and ad platforms, and leaves the community more wiggle room for any possible future expansions of the on-topic guidelines. However, that's not to say that I dislike Website Administration or think that it's a bad candidate.

---

To help place the site's current name and future name ideas in context, here are some Stack Exchange sites from the master list that are named after professions/groups ("ors", "ers"):

• Database Administrators (not "administration")
• Android Enthusiasts (not just "android")
• (Pro)Webmasters

And sites named after fields ("ing", etc.):

• Electrical Engineering (not "engineers")
• WordPress Development (not "designers")
• Writing (not "writers")
• Software Engineering
• Graphic Design
• Data Science
• Game Development
• Computer Science
• Network Engineering
• Video Production
• Woodworking
• ...and many more

Sites named after professions/groups seem to be the exception rather than the rule, so a name change away from Webmasters could help us fit in better with the other site names, and perhaps help us feel more inclusive and less clubby which is a concern I've heard expressed. (Instead of a group that some might interpret as being "for and by webmasters", our branding could hint to a more approachable/inclusionary group of "people discussing website administration").

Answer 4

This is an alternative answer to my previous answer so that the following suggested brand names can be voted on separately:

If we were to rebrand our site to a different name, then I'm suggesting that we change it to an actual brand name instead of changing it to terms that are difficult to remember, restrictive, and not fully descriptive of our site. Characteristics of a good brand name include being:

• Unique
• Memorable
• Extendable
• Suggestive

"Web Administration" doesn't really meet those characteristics since it's generic, not very memorable (it's long and doesn't exactly roll-off-the-tongue), restrictive, and doesn't really describe all of the topics we cover either. For example, would SEO or marketing really be considered "administration"?

WebAdmin or WebAdmins could work well as a new brand name however because they're both:

• Unique - there isn't any other forum, group, or major product currently using them

• Memorable - they're shorter (three syllables) and more easily remembered

• Extendable and Suggestive - an admin can refer to anyone who owns or manages a website/app, which is a requirement to be considered on-topic here. That would also apply to SEO specialists and marketers who manage analytics and ad accounts. These days, I often hear, "Check with the admin on that" (not webmaster) in relation to multiple areas. In fact, even moderators on this site are often referred to as "admins" (though we're not really).

These brand names would also be on par with the other branded Stack Exchange sites that are the most popular by far: "StackOverflow", "ServerFault", and "SuperUser". Additionally, they're more similar in appearance to Webmasters and our URL: webmasters.stackexchange.com, and therefore would be less confusing to visitors. "WebAdmins" is a near drop-in replacement for "Webmasters".

They also describe our community of users as a whole fairly well: we're no longer a single person doing every possible job for the web, we're admins that own or manage websites/apps and related accounts (e.g., Google Search Console, Analytics, Ads, etc...). Lastly, they're not restrictive because an admin could be knowledgeable in several different topic areas, as many of us are.

I would support a change to one of the above because I think they would better meet the objective of moving from an older term to a more updated brand name, without restricting our wide-scope of topics or current users who are experienced in multiple areas of the web. They would also be less confusing to visitors who might be expecting to find questions & answers for "Webmasters" since "WebAdmins" would be very similar in appearance.

Answer 5

For me, webmasters is not old-school so I feel nothing wrong in keeping it. (And even if it was old-school for some definition of that, what bad consequences does it have on the content it hosts? I would think none).

I agree that the "pro" in "ProWebmasters" could go as it provides no added value.

Thus, just keeping the name "Webmasters" would completely match the hostname of the website, and only minimal rebranding would be needed.

Or "Webmastering" if you want to put more emphasize on the activity (doing web stuff) than the people doing it (the "masters" of the web).

I have no strong feelings between that or changing to anything else proposed, but I feel no strong urge either to drop "webmasters".

More generally, on the process, I would expect that goals are clearly stated if a rebranding is to occur. And ideally with facts and hard numbers, not just feelings like "being more modern", which is very subjective and hard to assess.

In particular, as stated in some comments, if new name is used, we should make it abundantly clear on what the website covers (what is on-topic or not) to avoid any mistakes and confusions with other websites, and particularly ServerFault and core StackOverflow.

So for example, a good question for me to have in mind would be: if rebranding occurs to name X, does that improve or not possible confusions with other Q&A websites? If yes, in what way?

Answer 6

A good brand has a clear focus and knows their target audience.

It is of my opinion that if we're going to change the name, it should be one of the following:

Webmasters - just stripping the "Pro"

Or

Search Engine Optimization

The argument for Webmasters has been made very clearly already. Below I present an argument for Search Engine Optimization.

---

The primary argument against changing the name to Search Engine Optimization, or SEO, is that we cover a lot of other things outside of the discipline.

Looking the front page right now, however, I can't find a single question scrolling all the way down that isn’t about SEO, a Google product, or doing something else within the context of optimizing a site for search engines.

Here’s one that at face value might be about more than SEO:

Minify at the web server level or at CDN level?

The goal appears to be about optimize their website performance using WP Rocket plugin. They’re obviously looking to achieve sufficient Web Vitals for Google since that's a rankings factor now. This is what makes it on topic for our site, and why StackOverflow sent it to us.

In my experience, albeit limited compared to all of you, the questions that are not about SEO that get covered here belong on (or would be a better fit for) either ServerFault, AskUbuntu, or SuperUser.

Brief aside: Many of these get flagged and closed, and many do not because we answer them very well. That said though, I see no reason why those questions can't be migrated to one of the aforementioned sites after one of our own has gotten first dibs.

Looking at our guidelines:

What topics can I ask about here?

Pro Webmasters is a site for asking questions about operating and managing your own website. Questions here are commonly about, but not limited to:

• Search engine optimization (SEO)
• Domains
• Web and email hosting
• Internet marketing
• Website management (e.g., analytics, ads, URLs, etc…)

As far as branding goes, you could call the site "Search Engine Optimization” and get away with covering all of the other topics on that list. Someone that identifies as an “SEO” surely encounters all of them throughout the course of their career.

Overall, my argument is that if SEO is the majority of what we cover, then for all intensive purposes, we’re an SEO site.

Search Engine Optimization has a clear focus, clear target audience, and encompasses the vast majority of what people ask questions about on our site.

Webmasters is the easiest solution, considering we can't change our subdomain and/or logo.

---

Something to consider I thought of as finishing this answer:

Technical SEO I think is actually very fitting to the skillsets that most of us possess and questions we answer. Technical SEO is pretty much anything these days that requires any sort of code, or an understanding of networking, http protocol, etc.

From Backlinko:

Technical SEO is the process of ensuring that a website meets the technical requirements of modern search engines with the goal of improved organic rankings. Important elements of technical SEO include crawling, indexing, rendering, and website architecture.

There are also really not really any existing sites/communities focused on Technical SEO.