Unreliable statistics

Reading TIME Magazine this evening, I came across an article about the website AshleyMadison.com that had some content that I would like to strenuously object to. The article, titled Adultery 2.0, is about the fairly despicable site, which provides a platform for people who want to cheat on their spouses. It's pretty terrible overall, but one line in particular stopped me in my tracks and made me exclaim aloud, "You've got to be kidding me!"

"Traffic on the site - which takes its name from the two most popular female names in 2001, the year it launched - tripled on June 22, the day after Father's Day."

Excuse me? In whose world was Ashley one of the top two girls' names in 2001? Madison was, in fact, (unfortunately) #2 in 2001, but Ashley was all the way at #4. (Source: Social Security Administration) Doesn't everyone know that Emily was #1 for 12 years, absolutely precluding that statement from being true? Ashley hadn't been in the top 2 since 1995.

Duh!

Peggy? Jack? Polly?

Here's an interesting article that was linked in the comments at the Baby Name Wizard blog.

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=1219&u_sid=10304129

The author is generally quite knowledgeable about names and naming conventions. I've heard plenty of people express surprise at how Jack and John, for example, or Peggy and Margaret, are related. I honestly thought that was something everyone knew. Medieval nicknames! This article spells it all out.