Giraffe Forum

Working for a government organization, I can give you multiple examples or official lingo that has led to long discussions and many meetings.

Hand hygiene vs. Hand washing

Wastewater vs. Sewage

Pediculosis vs. Head Lice

Tax adjustment vs. Tax increase

Bid opportunities vs. Tenders

Be a Great Parent vs. Parenting Tips

Waste Management vs. Garbage
Flu vaccinations vs. Flu shots

I find this is due to employees not understanding the importance of using citizen-friendly wording. Their corporate language is so intrenched in them because they use it every day in their job among co-workers and that’s the way its always been. No one has ever said “there’s a better way when it comes to the web”.

When I was in Gr. 5, I starred in a school play and I was horrible - the director never explained that being in a play required more than just memorizing lines and saying them on stage, it required acting. If onlý someone had explained that to me, I wouldn’t have made 500 parents suffer through 90 minutes of the worse Wizard of Oz ever.

If Web professionals want to get their sites out of the dark ages and into the enlightened ages, they need to communicate the need for using common words to start a culture change within their organizations. If they aren’t pro-active to start the change, then they shouldn’t be surprised when someone writes corporate lingo, rather than citizen centric words.

Distinguishing between the language of bureaucrats, advertising and common sense is vital. It’s absurd to talk about tax adjustments when we mean tax increases. It’s not more convenient for the customer to have to use an ATM, etc. But adopting public relations terminology for important concepts just because that’s what pops in our heads at the moment doesn’t always make sense either.

Precision in language really does matter. If we give up on “climate change” and stick with “global warming” — and it gets cold and snows in unusual places at unusual times, people won’t believe it has to do with global warming. They’ll disbelieve the scientists, resist efforts to change and assume those silly experts are wrong again. “Climate change” is more accurate, not intellectually dishonest nor particularly difficult to grasp.

The Web allows us to use keywords to make all kinds of terms searchable on one page, so we don’t always have to pick the public relations term that 25 million people think of first. We can keep searching for precision in our language and still avoid the absurdities of bureaucrats and advertising copywriters.

To assume that all language should be reduced to a vote by people who grow up bombarded by advertising pseudo-language won’t help us deal with complex problems that deserve understanding and engagement by all of us. The book “On Bullshit” by Harry Frankfurt is just one source to think about this more carefully.

Defo see where you are coming from - and normally I’m with you Sir - but on certain aspects of this I think you’re slightly off-track.

To be specific I think you are off-track on the “global warming” example. But I could also see how it relates to bird flu and others.

Why the subject is not often passed off as “global warming” on certain web sites is because it is more than that.

Scientifically. Realistically. Truthfully.

It is about changing climates.

Extreme weather events.

Changes that will also include some places getting a lot colder, not warmer (imagine the west coast of Ireland without the Gulf Stream).

If in presenting the case on global warming you simply only referred to it as that, you wouldn’t be telling the whole truth. You would be misleading.

There are solutions that allows one to be *true to the truth* (and so retain your credibility) yet take into account popular search terms.

Such solutions would make sure people who search on the term “global warming” can reach the information they seek, in the context of the bigger picture. And so educate.

You can, for example, do this by using paid search results for the term “global warming”.

Or using the phrase “global warming” in H1 headers or browser titles when relevant, so reaching higher in natural search results.

Or by using the phrase in sub-navigation items that are specific to global warming but not perverting the climate change message overall.

It is wrong to be *purely* tabloid in your labelling if that then harms the very essence and credibility of the work you are trying to do. Especially for science based orgs.

Imagine this…

You are after a tin of tomato sauce in the supermarket. That’s your task.

You find a tin that says “Tomato Sauce” on the label. You buy it.

When you get home and open it, you find it also has baked beans inside it.

What would be your reaction? More critically what would be your opinion of the manufacturer?

Should you label your tin “baked beans” with a subline that says “in tomato sauce” - or just hope that people are happy with the *slight* deception?

After all, it is your job to give them what they want, even if it is not entirely what they got… isn’t it?

I’m sympathetic to Danico and Ste’s calls for precision in language but I’m not sure the web, and certainly not the major search engines, are a good place for subtlety or nuancing — it’s all about headlines. There is always a tension between the message the organisation wants to get out and the stories people want to hear, and maybe it comes down to whether your site is/wants to be well-known to the general population or is more of a niche expert business that is respected in its field. The chicken-egg conundrum then is obviously how do other experts find you if not by search engines? Jargon? Does Kerry Smith search for bird flu but Dr Knowitall searches for H5N1?

I love this discussion, and I appreciate Donica and Ste’s insightful feedback as well as Brian and Gerry’s thought-provoking responses to them. As a teacher of and advocate for new technology users, search engine technology is undoubtedly some of the most difficult to explain. (It takes a lot of effort to help new users understand why they need to think so hard about their search terms and perform iterative searches based on past results). The user interfaces and intelligence of the engines will likely continue to improve, resulting in more accurate results on the first search. Until that distant day of search engine nirvana arrives, I’d like to see the technology itself help educate the users. Rather than users needing to understand that “cheap flights” are “low fares,” why can’t the search engine compile a thesaurus-like set of most frequently related words/terms and suggest those as additional searches? This addresses Gerry’s primary concern, avoids the problem Ste mentions (creative reinterpretation/substitution of key terms, resulting in less than exact/valid results) while educating users (something Donica seems to be in favor of) as well. So a search for “Global warming” could inform a user that “Climate Change” will provide many more results.

I’ve always found that helping users while simultaneously training them to be a little more self-sufficient is generally a win-win.

Ben K
http://explaintechnology.wordpress.com/