42 replies to this topic

[qwerty]

Ian, does this mean that what I'd read about SMA-NA and SEMPO working together on establishing "standardized" definitions wasn't correct?

[GBRD]

 
I agree. Which is why if we do this, I would only seek consensus among our trusted moderators (and perhaps a few others) who are all on the same page. 
 
Otherwise, there's no sense in trying to do it as it would  never get done because no one would ever agree. 
 
I personally could care less if the rest of the SEO world thinks our definitions are as long as we here agree on them and call on them for our own use. 
 
And I would in no way attempt to get others to agree with them or use them.  But if we could agree here to use them, that would be helpful. 

 

I think Jill has the right idea and her approach is only reasonable one that I can see. Such an effort could never be undertaken with idea of creating a globally applicable and universally accepted vocabulary. Rather the goal should be to create the most logical and comprehensive vocabulary, such that over time SEOs would naturally choose to employ it based upon its inherent strengths (In facilitating more productive communications.)

Not an imposition, just the best option

[GBRD]

Even if you set a single definition for those terms, there's no way to make the rest of the community use them.  We can't even get our own community to use the few words we've defined for use at HR!

I don't mean to rain on your very good idea , but I think it's a futile effort.

I see your point and would even tend to agree, however I think that if undertaken in an intelligent fashion, this project risks nothing but providing a comprehensive frame of reference for HR. Still an accomplishment worthy of the effort. Also it would still have the potential to gain momentum over time.

[mcanerin]

We will probably work towards standardized definitions, but what I'm saying is that if, for example, my definition of "linkbait" is a fancy new concept, but someone else defines it as viral marketing, but most people just call it "things that people tend to want to link to", then, frankly, the definition should be the common usage unless it's blatantly wrong or inaccurate.

I don't think the fact that we may have a difficult time coming up with a definition of "cloaking" means that we should not provide a definition of what "ROI" or "PPC" is, for example.

That's defeatist, in my opinion. The fact that there are potential disagreements just means it's worth doing. One demands the other. There is absolutely no reason to have a set of definitions if there is no possible confusion over what those definitions are.

<rant>
Finally (and on a completely personal note - not related to the SMA), I refuse to allow the deliberate obfuscation of terms by spammers, as well as the inadvertent obfuscation by the stupid and/or clueless, affect the rights of clients to actually be educated in the terminology of the industry.

What if a client signs a contract that says that the SEO will not do something, then the SEO goes off and does it, but says that "their" definition is different from the norm?

How do you do due diligence when there isn't a commonly held set of independent definitions? You can't. So the clients get screwed.

I don't work for spammers, I work for clients, and they have a legal and ethical right to be informed - which starts, number one, with understanding what the hell the SEO is talking about.
</rant>

Ian

[ChipJohns]

I was reading an article "somewhere" not too long ago about the Court Systems and that Judges usually keep 5 to 6 different dictionaries on hand for different things. (Showing that there is never a "definitive" dictionary anywhere in existence!) There are many ways to create a definition, and any one can be correct as long as they are within a proper "scope."

I agree that it is important to reflect the true meaning according to usage, but this doesn't mean that their can't be distinctions. If a word has more than one meaning, well, that is why many dictionaries give "more than one definition" to any given word.

This would be an awesome undertaking..

My little vote is "Go for it guys!"

[GBRD]

<rant>
Finally (and on a completely personal note - not related to the SMA), I refuse to allow the deliberate obfuscation of terms by spammers, as well as the inadvertent obfuscation by the stupid and/or clueless,  affect the rights of clients to actually be educated in the terminology of the industry.

What if a client signs a contract that says that the SEO will not do something, then the SEO goes off and does it, but says that "their" definition is different from the norm?

How do you do due diligence when there isn't a commonly held set of independent definitions? You can't. So the clients get screwed.

I don't work for spammers, I work for clients, and they have a legal and ethical right to be informed - which starts, number one, with understanding what the hell the SEO is talking about.
</rant>

Ian

Well said.

[qwerty]

I agree that it is important to reflect the true meaning according to usage, but this doesn't mean that their can't be distinctions. If a word has more than one meaning, well, that is why many dictionaries give "more than one definition" to any given word.

Agreed, but when one definition exists in order to promote a particular agenda, those who don't happen to share that agenda are going to have a hard time accepting that the definition even deserves consideration.

[DanThies]

Try defining:

Cloaking

Just list all the possible definitions on mush terms, so nobody gets the idea that they mean something in particular...

Cloak·ing
n.
1. Something only bad people do 2. Something only smart people do 3. The only way to keep "them" from seeing your super-optimized META tags 4. Something Google does because people in Brazil get the Brazilian version when they type in www.google.com

[ChipJohns]

Agreed, but when one definition exists in order to promote a particular agenda, those who don't happen to share that agenda are going to have a hard time accepting that the definition even deserves consideration.

I guess I should have prefaced with the need for objectiveness and unbias. A true definition would not take either side but rather "give a definition(s) for the meaning of a word."

If a word has a broad meaning, or has different meanings by differnt groups this would be spelled out in seperate and distinct definitions, as set forth in a Dictionary.

HOWEVER AND ON THE OTHER HAND:

Rather, any set of definitions can be quite different. Any given industry or sub-group can have its own set of definitions for words that are used in that industry to explain their meaning to the industry or group.

While others may obscure meanings with ambiguities to fit their desires, this doesn't negate what a word means to any given group of people.

In some cases, even when ambiguity is a fact , making reference to a set of guidlines can give direction in any case; even if to say that my definition DOES NOT encompass the referenced work, this can still help to clarify the meaning that I want to give to any given phrase.

Many times in legal issues, definitions are used not as definitive but rather as a touch stone or reference point.

[ChipJohns]

Cloak·ing n.

I'm confused here - I thought that the Federation could not develop any kind of cloaking device until some point in the 24 century..?? According to the Kidamer(sp) Treaty I think it was..

[qwerty]

OFFTOPIC:

Dan's not a member of the Federation, and as such, he doesn't recognize its treaties. He lives in Texas.

[Jill]

If a word has more than one meaning, well, that is why many dictionaries give "more than one definition" to any given word.

I think that's a good point and we would probably want to do something like that.

So here's another question.

Would it be worthwhile for me to install some Wiki software here on HR or could this be done via a pinned thread that had access only by people we wanted to have access?

Or it could be a thread that only moderators work on behind the scenes until we have it right. Any thoughts on that?

I wouldn't mind installing Wiki software if it seemed it would be useful and make things easier.

[GBRD]

I think that's a good point and we would probably want to do something like that. 

So here's another question.

Would it be worthwhile for me to install some Wiki software here on HR or could this be done via a pinned thread that had access only by people we wanted to have access?

Or it could be a thread that only moderators work on behind the scenes until we have it right.  Any thoughts on that? 

I wouldn't mind installing Wiki software if it seemed it would be useful and make things easier.

I think that it would be appropriate to make the initial effort a moderators only thread. Then once a working draft is completed it could be moved to a Wiki if that seemed a better medium than the forum.

[randfish]

Michael - why do I have to create it? SEOmoz isn't nearly the authority in the industry that HighRankings or SEW or SERountable is...

Maybe I could build it with AJAX so as you start typing a word it tries to guess what you're looking for and provides the definition - that would get some serious linkage

[qwerty]

Yeah! I'll call Steve Rubel right away!