A Common Vocabulary For Seo/sem?, Pro's & Con's of a Common SEO Vocab Options

[GBRD]

I am interested in hearing everyone's take on the idea of a commonly understood and accepted industry vocabulary for SEO/SEM. For example if we were all asked to define "SEO" or "Keyword Research", etc. there would invariably be widely differing responses.
Would it be beneficial if we shared a common set of concepts from which to describe our craft? Is this possible?

Would a common nomenclature enhance our ability to communicate effectively with each other? How about with people outside of the industry?

What if the application was specific to certain arenas such a forum or a conference? Could a common vocabulary be created in such a way as to ensure that everyone could participate without sacrificing personal ideas?

What effects (positive and negative) could this have on areas like:

• Research
• Branding/Differentiation
• Public Perception

[qwerty]

That gets complicated. I've seen (and participated in) numerous arguments involving SEO vocabulary, and it's often hit an impasse when either someone accuses someone else of using a term in order to confuse others and/or muddying the waters between what is and isn't ok.

There's been an ongoing debate on the definition of cloaking, which is why you'll see people write things like "Google cloaks" or that there's a difference between approved and unapproved cloaking, whereas others will say that what the first group calls approved cloaking isn't, be definition, cloaking at all.

I'm afraid any universally-approved glossary is going to have to leave out a few terms.

[Michael Martinez]

When Rand Fishkin releases an SEO Dictionary, you'll probably start seeing people begin to settle down and learn to live with certain expressions and idioms.

Until then, it's a verbal free-for-all.

[GBRD]

Hi, thanks for your input. I agree that such an endeavor would be a complicated matter.

The more I think about it, the more I am leaning towards the idea of a common set of basic words or tokens from which more complex ideas like "cloaking" could be described. For example a conceptual ontology or even a taxonomy to organize ideas. Or perhaps a common system of knowledge management from which a vocabulary could be developed.

[GBRD]

When Rand Fishkin releases an SEO Dictionary, you'll probably start seeing people begin to settle down and learn to live with certain expressions and idioms.

Until then, it's a verbal free-for-all.

Do you think that the current "verbal free-for-all" is a hinderance to the development of the industry?

[Michael Martinez]

I think the industry itself is its own worst hindrance. But that usually is a sign of a young industry with a lot of growth potential. When everything has been formalized and reduced to an academically trusted set of principles, it will become boring, revenue growth will slow down, and economists will label search engine optimization a "mature" industry.

By then, I'll probably have found something else to pontificate about.

[qwerty]

I understand SEMPO and SMA-NA are talking about working together on a common vocabulary. I wish them well, but I'm not very confident about it. I'm sure Ian or Christine could give us more information about how far this has come so far.

[Jill]

GBRD, we have some commonly expressed definitions that we agree on for this particular forum, and I'd certainly be happy to create a more official one for us.

But as to the industry as a whole, no, and it will never work because we can't even agree on the main thing...the definition of search engine optimization.

Still, I'd love to do a High Rankings Forum definitive list. Maybe like a Wiki even, but only available to be edited by our moderators and a few other trusted individuals.

Then whoever wanted to use our definitions in the larger SEO world would be welcome and whoever didn't wouldn't have to (although they would be dorks of course! (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) )

[Denyse]

and then we get to translate them into French (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/clapping.gif) , Spanish (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif) , German (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/lmao.gif) , Russian (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/yahoo.gif) all the way to the mad house (or the nearest bar (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/drunk.gif) )

[Ron Carnell]

Can you define what you mean by "common" for me? (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/angel_not.gif)

[Jill]

Ron: (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/fishslap.gif)

[GBRD]

GBRD, we have some commonly expressed definitions that we agree on for this particular forum, and I'd certainly be happy to create a more official one for us.

But as to the industry as a whole, no, and it will never work because we can't even agree on the main thing...the definition of search engine optimization.

Still, I'd love to do a High Rankings Forum definitive list.  Maybe like a Wiki even, but only available to be edited by our moderators and a few other trusted individuals.

Then whoever wanted to use our definitions in the larger SEO world would be welcome and whoever didn't wouldn't have to (although they would be dorks of course! (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) )

That's sounds great Jill. Actually I was going to ask you about that specifically if this thread got enough of a response. I would be honored to assist if assistance is required.
(IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[mcanerin]

I know that the approach that I would advocate the SMA taking would be similar to the one that most dictionaries take - figure out what is the most common and accepted version and then report that one.

Dictionaries should not be in the business of "making" or promoting words, but rather compiling and presenting. After all, if a word is used one way by a bunch of people, and an official source gives it a whole new meaning, then all the articles, posts and communications that were used previously will no longer make sense.

I've run into this myself personally from time to time, and it's frustrating, to say the least.

Therefore, I would certainly encourage HR and other forums to compile and argue over definitions first, since any organization hoping to make a definitive list would look to those sources first.

A glossary should be a process of consensus, not edict, and that process would start primarily with the common usage, followed by authoritative communicators (like forums and major article writers/news organizations) then by "official" statements by qualified vendors, and only finally by the editors of the resource, IMO.

So go for it! I'd be happy to contribute.

Ian

[Scottie]

I don't mean to be a naysayer, but I believe it's impossible without listing all the possible definitions of a word.

If, as Ian says, you should only compile usage and not mandate meaning, there's no way to get agreement.

Try defining:

Cloaking

Aging Delay

Sandbox

PageRank

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 (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/rain.gif) , but I think it's a futile effort.

[Jill]

If, as Ian says, you should only compile usage and not mandate meaning, there's no way to get agreement.

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 (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_images/poo.gif) 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.