See the cached Google page I linked to. The formatting is all messed up, but it lists the ranking of the name, the name, and then the number of times the name was used. Look for the phrase: "For a girl Name Gender Times used Favorites"

Number 1 is Emily, and it was used 25,494 times in 2003.

Number 514 (not 511 as I stated above) is Susan, and it was used 550 times in 2003.

Look for the phrase "1 Emily 25494" and then later "514 Susan 550"

I know it's a sucky link to support a figure, but it's the only list I found that included more than the top 100 names for 2003. There are many more sites that will confirm the number one name in 2003 was Emily and was used 25,494 times.

I love that site.

The number is "usage of (name) per MILLION babies." So, it would be 550 million Susans. A popular name is Ethan, and its #4, with over 5 billion babies born in 2005 with that name. Although 550 million sound like a lot, its only 10% of the number of Ethans.
My son's name has grown in popularity over the last few years, and in 2006 there were ~440 million Miles, ranked 202. Still a lot better than 5 billion.

:headshake

5 Billion Ethans born in the USA in 2005? I don't think so.....
5,000,000,000?

United States
Population: 301,139,947 (July 2007 est.)
from here

Population Clocks
U.S. 303,168,757
World 6,641,883,975
15:28 GMT (EST+5) Jan 04, 2008
from here

Ignoring the math mistakes later in the post, I can find no indication from the site I linked that the figures are "per million" babies. The word "million" doesn't appear on that site anywhere. The similar sites I linked to that have only the top names for that year also don't mention the figures are "per million" babies. Where did you see that?

In 2005, there were roughly 4 million babies born in the US, so you can multiply that number by 4 if it's true. Or 2,200 Susans in the country. But I see no proof it is true.

If figures are given per million, in order to know how many babies that is, you need to know how many million babies were born in the year and multiply by that figure, not multiply by one million. (4.1 million in the US seems the most reliable figure I've found). The site UT links to is per million. But the site glatt links to gives usage, so 550 is the answer (according to that site), not 550 per million

hah! I got distracted and beaten!

Where's that beating a dead horse icon?

To really belabor the point, in the Flash based site that UT linked to, the statistics are per million, and the graph for Susan, pasted enlarged below, appears to show there were 100 Susans per Million births. So you multiply by 4.1 and get 410, which is only ten more babies than I estimated way back in post 21.

Worship me, and my mad estimating skillz!

Ok, my ability to do math is completely off. Thanks for the correction! lol

you should probably run for president, aimee :D

:whip:

oops, wrong thread? :lol:

Well, I did invent the internet... lol

My name was 318th the year I was born, and got all the way up to 33rd in 1991 (that's when it started appearing on personalized stuff - long after I actually wanted barrettes with my name on them).
My daughter's name is not and never has been in the top 1000. No barrettes for her...

My name was a leader at the turn of the century (ranked at 33) and then fell out of favor in the 1940's for some reason, but is now making a bit of a comeback.

Interesting.

my name is average and boring.