We also have a very common last name and our preference was for more traditional/timeless/simple names-so that's what we used.  Something exotic and flashy just wouldn't have been us and I didn't want a name that didn't fit our family.  I also liked the idea that my kids would have some anonymity online, although that wasn't a primary concern-just kind of a bonus.

One word of advice, if you use a timeless or traditional name with a common surname be sure to google the full name before using it.  It's very likely that there'll be someone at least a little well known with the name and you'll want to make sure any inadvertent namesakes aren't known for something undesirable.  

I think you could go either way. Maybe if you go with a common first name go for a more unusual middle name so there is something that will likely provide some way to differentiate between the many others with the same first and last name?

This is also a case where I'd go against the usual sentiment and be more likely to use a more common name for a girl than a boy for two reasons: Unlike a boy who will likely have the same full name his whole life, when a girl marries there's a good chance her last name will change (which unless her married name is also common will render the issue moot at that point). Also, with some exceptions, the most popular boy's names are more common than the most popular girl's names (this is especially true for the "traditional" names that don't change much in popularity over time), and thus for example an Emily Smith is less likely to run into mix-ups than a Michael Smith (especially when all age groups are taken into account).

My married surname is very common.  While my given name is not that common, it has ranked around #300 give or take for many years.  So there are plenty of people around with my given name and married surname.  I get a lot of people's email for that reason.  However, my maiden name is quite rare, although not completely unheard of.  When I use my full name--given, maiden, and married last--I am the only one in the world as far as I know.  My son has two traditional, old stand-by names, not that common in his generation, but common overall.  He gets LOTS of other people's emails.  He has his own business--he writes and markets his own books--and it is important for him to rank high on google.  With his very common name (he publishes under his nickname and surname), he has to use various strategies to get his name up there.  My former husband (from whom my son and I derived our common surname) had an uncommon middle name--Aloysius--which helped to distinguish him from the many others with his given name and surname. 

So from these experiences, my recommendation is to choose a classic, timeless first name (and there will be a horde of others in the world with that name) and a very uncommon name for the middle, thus insuring both the ability to be relatively anonymous in our increasingly nosey-parker world and the ability to stand out when desired. Uncommon does not have to equal exotic or flashy. It can be a family surname that hasn't morphed into a given name, or a name from the past that hasn't been resurrected.

My married surname is very common.  While my given name is not that common, it has ranked around #300 give or take for many years.  So there are plenty of people around with my given name and married surname.  I get a lot of people's email for that reason.  However, my maiden name is quite rare, although not completely unheard of.  When I use my full name--given, maiden, and married last--I am the only one in the world as far as I know.  My son has two traditional, old stand-by names, not that common in his generation, but common overall.  He gets LOTS of other people's emails.  He has his own business--he writes and markets his own books--and it is important for him to rank high on google.  With his very common name (he publishes under his nickname and surname), he has to use various strategies to get his name up there.  My former husband (from whom my son and I derived our common surname) had an uncommon middle name--Aloysius--which helped to distinguish him from the many others with his given name and surname. 

So from these experiences, my recommendation is to choose a classic, timeless first name (and there will be a horde of others in the world with that name) and a very uncommon name for the middle, thus insuring both the ability to be relatively anonymous in our increasingly nosey-parker world and the ability to stand out when desired. Uncommon does not have to equal exotic or flashy. It can be a family surname that hasn't morphed into a given name, or a name from the past that hasn't been resurrected.

Miriam's advice makes perfect sense and really gives you the best of both worlds. The important thing is to go with names you really love, and if choosing something less common just to be different means choosing a name you care for less, I think that would be too bad. I say that as someone who does have the modern bias towards "distinctive" names (yes, I would suppose I would go with your option #1) - and a growing ambivalence for my own preference.

Another thought: by all means go ahead and Google your combinations now and see what you find, but it occurs to me that with a common surname it is just as likely that someone given the same name after your child could become a famous (good or bad) reference for the name within his/her lifetime. In other words, overthinking it doesn't really protect you from anything, and with a common or classic name you do insulate yourself from potential connections with plausible deniability!

Also, what matters a lot more than what other people think is what you and your kids think. Sure, the babysitter who wants to name his kids Tycho and Tesla may find Samuel "drab and boring" - but if it's your favorite boys' name of all time and the name of your husband's late beloved grandfather, that makes it beautiful, meaningful and well-loved.

- kalmia (not logged in)

Thanks for sharing all your advice and experiences, it's really helpful. It feels like the people I know IRL--who aren't necessarily really "into" names, but when you start talking babies, everybody's got an opinion--just really tend toward the "you have to name your kids something nobody's ever heard before or they won't be SPECIAL!!" side and I was questioning myself. I've always thought the classic first, more unusual middle is a really good way to get the best of both worlds, but it's really nice to hear it confirmed by some outsiders. :)

"2) Choose classic/more common names to "go with" the traditional last name, because most people are using the strategy #1 and a little Jane Smith or Mary Jones will be unique among her peers in reality anyway."

Even if this is true, there are still tons of older "Mary Smiths" and will be for most of your daughter's life. A Mary who's 40 now may still be kicking when your daughter is 40 herself.

If you do go this route, do her a favor and give her an EXTREMELY unusual middle name, because she won't otherwise be able to use her real name for business or creative purposes.

Regarding Google-ability: My name is John Baker. Go ahead, tell me who I am.

That said, there's something valuable about being able to hide in a sea of your namesakes. No one is going to sneak out information about myself in a social situation. It won't stop identity theft, since they care less about the name and more about other identifying information, but I've never had personal information given to me in an interview, for example. Also, it hasn't harmed my business prospects any. I have not lost out on any job opportunities because I can't be googled; people don't search for potential hires by name, but by qualifications, and those can bring me to the top of the pile.

Yes, when identifying myself within a group, I always have to answer which John Baker I am. But really, it's not that much of an issue. There was one time when it was a serious drawback: my father (another John Baker) was named in a paternity suit. It was baseless, of course, but it turned out that it was because the mother had named a different John Baker in my father's hometown, and the court went after the wrong person. So it will be important to ask for further identification to confirm that you yourself are the person accused, sometimes.

There is one further item, though: my middle name, although common, is quite atypical for John Bakers. When I need to confirm that I'm chosen out of a sea of people, my middle name is a great way to go, and it's a great conversation piece.

So my advice is not to worry about the common name. You don't need to be uniquely identified out of billions of people by your name alone. It really won't cost you much of anything. That said, a distinctive middle name will provide the uniqueness, when and if you need it. Also, a common last name is a great chance to use all sorts of fantastic, wild names--I call this the Jones Effect: all names sound good with Jones. So any of those paths will do you fine. But having a common name is not the death sentence that you might be led to believe it is.