Fuzzy Content

The English language is pretty remarkable. By some counts, it is the most diverse know language in the world. But this is can not be verified because it is impossible to know how many words there are at any one time. My Miriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (I’m using the 10th edition, my favorite) alone has over 215,00 different definitions. This is a brief listing of the more than 14,500,000 citations collected by Miriam-Webster editors since the 1890’s.

But the really amazing thing is that out of all of these different words and definitions, no two words mean exactly the same thing. Is a couch and a sofa really the same thing? How about a davenport, divan, or, dare I say it? a love-seat? I can think of only two words that mean exactly the same thing. You think about it and read my answer at the end of this post.

The other amazing thing about language is that many, many words have multiple definitions. Many of these definitions don’t have anything to do with other meanings of the word.

Point, Set, and Match

You might be thinking of tennis after reading the previous group of words. But why? The word “point” has 28 different meanings in my dictionary, “match” has ten, and “set” has a whopping 42 different definitions (see why I love the 10th edition?). These do not include hyphenated words, like “set-apart” or “point-blank”.

If you thought of tennis before, why? Probably because you play it and that series of words is common to the game. If you don’t you could have though it was a sharp tip, hooking a fish, and a companion. The difference is context. But context can also be decided by an individual’s education, life-experience, where they grew up, and what they do.

Here’s the rub: we like to use tags to determine context, but tags are susceptible to many different meanings. Take the word “garter” and my favorite photo-share Web site, Flickr. Search the tag garter and you can get any of the following:

1. a stocking, (safe for work)
2. a snake,
3. a type of knitting,
4. or even an English chivalry order.

So in a “World-Wide” Web, how can we determine context, if the tags we we use to define meaning are themselves open to personal interpretation?

If were all biologists, we could use the pre-difened, Latin-based, internationally recognized system of classification. When I write about Sequoiadendron giganteum everybody knows what I mean because all biologists have agreed to use that term to mean giant redwood.

Somehow, I don’t think using a dead language for a tagging system will work for the general public.

Flickr addresses this problem by using tag “clusters” It basically looks for patterns in the tag cloud and groups similarly tagged images together. I like this system, but it has its limitations. It works well at the macro level, but it falls apart when you want something rather specific.

So what is the best answer? Well, if I knew of a software-based answer, I’d be a gazillionaire by now. We can start, as producers of content, by choosing our tags very carefully. Look up your tags in a dictionary and see if what you think your tag means is the first definition listed (this is the most common usage). Avoid tags that have lots of different meanings. You might also want to include other regional spelling or variations of your tags (i.e. coke, soda, and pop).

But first, get yourself a good dictionary. You know which one I recommend.

answer: flammable and inflammable

I just received a spam e-mail with the subject of “buttercup taxidermy.” I love it! Reminded me of all the random band name, song titles, mission/vision statement, etc. generators that polluted the ‘net for years.

“Buttercup taxidermy.” I just love it. That’s my new tag for all the miscellaneous detritus that clogs my head, the ‘net and this blog.

One of these things is not like the others.
One of these things doesn’t belong.
Can you tell me which thing is not like the others before I finish this blog?

• Gonzo Marketing
• Pinko Marketing
• Open Source Marketing
• Active listening
• Gorilla Marketing
• “Flipping the funnel”
• Reality Marketing

I jumped the Cluetrain early on and hurt my neck nodding as I read the Gonzo follow up. I like the penguin. Love the gorilla. And I’ve read a bit of the gurus stuff. I’ve been the victim of reality and I signed on.

Through it all I don’t think anyone has heard a damn word I said because they have all been too busy talking.

Marketing is marketing. Pink, black, straight, crazy, red, white or blue. Doesn’t matter. Marketing is marketing. People are people. Effective marketers know that and make the most of it. With or without a book deal.

One of the first steps in rebuilding a Web site is to identify what your goals should be. Remember that these goals should not just be for the redesign, but should include development, maintenance, and long-term planning. Follow these rules and your Web presence should reflect what you worked so hard for:

• Be specific. Vague goals, like “more traffic,” do not help determine success. When you are establishing trackable goals, use current benchmarks of the site to compare to, then use trends to determine if the site is achieving these goals.
• Don’t include Web conventions. Nobody sets out to rebuild a site that is difficult for the reader. But every list of goals that I see include “easy to use.” Web conventions should become part of your everyday thoughts. If so many sites use these conventions, that should be a given for you, not a goal.
• Look outside the site. Your Web presence is only a piece of communications with your audiences. Use goal setting to establish parameters that are the result of the site. More instant messenging activity and email subscriptions can be a result of heavier site traffic. Don’t forget to benchmark, but use key activities to determine how the Web can help.
• Continually reevaluate. Most of these goals shouldn’t be launch-oriented. Set aside the first six months of log files to start trending, then see activity that dictates goals for the following year.

Goals are not only log-driven. Make sure you are conducting on-going usability tests to ensure that your goals match your site visitors’ expectations. Remember that your site is built for them, not you. And if your goals don’t reflect their needs, you are wasting your time.

The Web is all about breaking the rules. By it’s nature, we continually push the envelope to see what our site visitors will and won’t react to. Here are some of the strategic trends emerging (if you are already on top of it, congratulations and keep pushing).

• Microformats. Why fight it. If the Web is moving to a standard, embrace it. For your calendar, directory, and relationships, use the standard markup that will become the norm. This will allow better search opportunities, meaning more people encounter your site in more places. Find out more at http://microformats.org/. Dimitri, of course, can talk on this for hours.
• Reader-generated content. Think of this as the World Wide Word of Mouth. Blogging is merely the beginning (and unfortunately in a lot of cases, still centrally managed). Allowing site visitors to interpret and comment on every piece of content you have is not dangerous. In fact, it validates the information you have worked so hard to perfect. Target has been doing this for years with each of their products.
• External push. Google moves you up on the list in relevance for two reasons. A heavy use of a keyword and other sites pointing to you. The more sites that have your link, the more potential site views you have as well. Build relationships with associations, local communities, and online communities. And reciprocate. Remember that it is called the “web” for a reason. We’re all related.

More to come on this, as this topic is constantly needing updates. If you aren’t on top of these trends yet, what are you waiting for?

I just found this inspiring passage in a Computerworld article:

It is the “manage their work” statement that struck me. This is what I’m on about, or trying to get on about. This is social content management. Regulations, policies and technologies respond too slowly for me to truly manage my work. For that, I need you. The metaphorical “you.” The greater good “you.”

You know who you are. (”I know who I am.” ) (”You know what you are?“)

The article, to me, seems a little misguided in part 1. I don’t think e-mail will be around in XX number of years. I’m looking for a system of opt-in blog/feed like tools that allow me to keep up with who I want on my own terms without all this sending and replying stuff. Part of the collective consciousness. The neverending thread. A cacophony of tangents made clear for us, by us. (Wait. Has that been done already? Nah.)
Have we progressed from The Blob, to the Borg to the blog? Not yet.

Real quick: Read “The User is Not Broken” and spread the meme. (For those who don’t know me, I refuse to use the word “manifes…”.

Your ignorance will not protect you.

I love it.