{"id":3014,"date":"2010-03-17T07:28:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-17T07:28:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/test.simple-talk.com\/uncategorized\/ad-hoc-taxonomy-owning-the-chess-set-doesnt-mean-you-decide-how-the-little-horsey-moves\/"},"modified":"2016-07-28T10:49:55","modified_gmt":"2016-07-28T10:49:55","slug":"ad-hoc-taxonomy-owning-the-chess-set-doesnt-mean-you-decide-how-the-little-horsey-moves","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.red-gate.com\/simple-talk\/blogs\/ad-hoc-taxonomy-owning-the-chess-set-doesnt-mean-you-decide-how-the-little-horsey-moves\/","title":{"rendered":"Ad-hoc taxonomy: owning the chess set doesn&#8217;t mean you decide how the little horsey moves"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>There was one of those little laugh-or-cry moments recently when I heard an anecdote about content strategy failings at a major online retailer. The story goes a bit like this: successful company in a highly commoditized marketplace succeeds on price and largely ignores its content team. Being relatively entrepreneurial, the founders are still knocking around, and occasionally like to &#8220;take an interest&#8221;. One day, they decree that clothing sold on the site can no longer be described as &#8220;unisex&#8221;, because this sounds old fashioned.<\/p>\n<p>Sad now.<\/p>\n<p>Let me just reiterate for the folks at the back: large retailer, commoditized market place, differentiating on price. That&#8217;s inherently unstable. Sooner or later, to keep growing, they&#8217;re going to need one or both of competitive differentiation and process optimization. <\/p>\n<p>I can&#8217;t speak for the latter, since I&#8217;m hypothesizing off a raft of rumour, but one of the simpler paths to the former is to become &#8211; or rather acknowledge that they <i>are<\/i> &#8211;<i> <\/i>a content business. Regardless, they need highly-searchable terminology.<\/p>\n<p>Even in the face of tooth and claw resistance to noticing the fundamental position content occupies in driving sales (and SEO) on the web, there&#8217;s a clear information problem here.<\/p>\n<p>Dilettante taxonomy is a disaster.<\/p>\n<p>Ok, so this is a small example, but that kind of makes it a good one. Unisex probably <i>is <\/i>the best way of describing clothing designed to suit either men or women interchangeably. It certainly takes less time to type (and read). It&#8217;s established terminology, and as a single word, it&#8217;s significantly better for web readability than a phrasal workaround. Something like &#8220;fits men or women&#8221; is short, by could fall foul of clause-level discard in web scanning. It&#8217;s not an adjective, so for intuitive reading it&#8217;s never going to be near the start of a title or description. It would also clutter up search results, and impose cognitive load in list scanning. Sorry kids, it&#8217;s just worse.<\/p>\n<p>Even if &#8220;unisex&#8221; were an archaism (which it isn&#8217;t), the <i>only<\/i> thing that would weigh against its being more usable and concise terminology would be evidence that this archaism were hurting conversions. Good luck with that.<\/p>\n<p>We once &#8211; briefly &#8211; called one of our products a &#8220;Can of worms&#8221;. It was a bundle in a bug-tracking suite, and we thought it sounded terribly cool. <\/p>\n<p>Guess how well that sold.<\/p>\n<p>We have information and content professionals for a reason: to make sure that whatever we put in front of users is optimised to meet user and business goals. If that thinking doesn&#8217;t inform style guides, taxonomy, messaging, title structure, and so forth, you might as well be finger painting.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>There was one of those little laugh-or-cry moments recently when I heard an anecdote about content strategy failings at a major online retailer. The story goes a bit like this: successful company in a highly commoditized marketplace succeeds on price and largely ignores its content team. Being relatively entrepreneurial, the founders are still knocking around,&#8230;&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":170602,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-3014","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blogs"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.red-gate.com\/simple-talk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3014","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.red-gate.com\/simple-talk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.red-gate.com\/simple-talk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.red-gate.com\/simple-talk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/170602"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.red-gate.com\/simple-talk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3014"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.red-gate.com\/simple-talk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3014\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24982,"href":"https:\/\/www.red-gate.com\/simple-talk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3014\/revisions\/24982"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.red-gate.com\/simple-talk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3014"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.red-gate.com\/simple-talk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3014"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.red-gate.com\/simple-talk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3014"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.red-gate.com\/simple-talk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=3014"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}