I was reading some posts at Swistle Baby Names, and since they're from 2007 or 2008 I feel uncomfortable commenting on them. So I will blog instead.
The major thing I wanted to say is that name popularity can be vastly affected by region/culture/etc. For example, almost every young Catholic family I know has a Teresa/Theresa/Therese. (And Mary/Maria/Marie, but I'm not talking about that right now.) When we picked out Teresa's name I know Mom at least was majorly concerned about it being too common. Then she looked it up on ssa.gov's baby names widget and found that in 2006 (the year our Teresa was born), her name was #533 in popularity. It's kept plummeting steadily since then; it was #695 in 2010. So you can pick a name that's not in the Top 500 for your kid and still encounter "There are three other kids with her name in her class."
(Theresa was 717 in 2006, which is funny because people tend to misspell Teresa's name as this, yet it's actually the less common spelling. Maybe it's more common in English-speaking circles, whereas Teresa is more common in Hispanic circles--which would further prove my point about culture and popularity.)
(Therese was 949 in 1984, after which it fell off the charts never to be seen again.)
Now for the real rambling, just because I love talking about baby names: When Andrea and I were born (in the late '80s), our parents' main concern was picking a name that was recognizable as a name but not popular. Yet they still picked names in the Top 100. Andrea was #36 in 1987; Megan was #11 in 1989. (And it made it to #10 several times in the '80s and '90s.) I've known a lot more people with my name than Andrea has; I think part of that is that there really aren't alternate spellings for Andrea but there are a ton for Megan, so my perception of my name's popularity was affected by all the Meghans and Meagans and Mayghinns. (Okay, that last one was made up, but I bet somebody out there has that name.)
Possible justification for my parents thinking it wasn't that popular: It's only been in the Top 1000 since 1952, and the Top 100 since 1975. So their perception of its popularity was probably affected by the fact that they didn't really grow up with any Megans. On the other hand, it's totally a trend name. Oh well. I still like it.
I must admit I'm kind of leery of Top 10 names as a result of my own name (though, come to think of it, that might just be the misspelling thing). Scott and I have a little list of names (disclaimer: not pregnant, just obsessed with names) and they're all over the charts. Of our eight boy names, two are in the Top 10 for 2010 (but neither of those has an alternate spelling that I know of, so now I feel better), two more are in the Top 100, two more are Top 200, one more is Top 300, and one hasn't been in the Top 1000 for the last 131 years. (That last one is a name Scott loves but I'm less loving towards, partly because I don't really recognize it as a name, even though it is.) Of our seven girl names, one was #2 (yeah, I'm giving you that one if you bother to look it up), one more was Top 20, one more was Top 100, two more were Top 1000 (300's and 600's respectively), one was Top 1000 briefly in the mid-sixties (but is a spelling/ethnic variation of a Top 500 name, poor hypothetical child), and one hasn't been Top 1000 since 1942 (and is not a variation of anything). One of those was my suggestion, one was Scott's but I like it. Obviously I have a little more taste for the obscure when it comes to girl names.
There was no point to that ramble. I'm going to go eat lunch now.