[Sigia-l] Findability

[Jonathan Broad]

On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 09:41, Jon Hanna wrote:
> The problem is that the more obvious interpretation of the coinage (find +
> able + ity) does exist as both a concept, and indeed something people are
> paid to do. Attempts to increase (find + able + ity) often damage the items
> value (we've all seen good sites totally destroyed in the quest for higher
> search engine ratings) and always destroy searchability (or what you would
> cause findability) unless the item really is something that the overwhelming
> majority of people would want to find rather than anything else.
> 
> Perhaps the flamage on this topic has been caused, in part, by some people
> using your definition and some that definition that I had assumed. Of course
> the term  not matching the definition one would expect, and this not
> appearing to be deliberate playfulness, in itself smacks of marketing.
> 

I don't think so.  Findability is a term that we are using in the
context of IA, not SEO, and those are very, very different creatures. 
Sorry if your first instinct was so think of the 'global findability' of
information, and I acknowledge that the mistake can be made.

Most of us, I think, have been thinking strictly of 'findability' in
terms of the sites and systems of information that we architect.  SEO
plays off the implementation details of a search engine, and the crudest
user analysis in terms of keyword usages.

'Findability' in the IA context includes *local* search engines (where
optimization can be made with no distortion to the content, via
metadata) and all the other arts of navigation we have come to utilize. 
It's a blanket term for the means to the end--to enhance the user's
'ability to find'.

I've just objected to Derek's odd dismissal of categorization,
systematization, and metadata *per se*, which I don't think stems from
the misapprehension you allude to.  If it does then, well, problem
solved! :)  I think most of us could agree that SEO smells sometimes of
snake oil.

Jonathan