Disclaimer: I’m being paid to write this review.

The single web page Search Engine Marketing Glossary by SEO Book author Aaron Wall seeks to provide definitions for some affiliate programs, AJAX, server status codes (301, 404, etc), people and more. The glossary uses the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license meaning others are free to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work as long as they attribute the source. This is a copyright friendly license that encourages mashups.

Wall cites the reason for creating the glossary was because people asked and then explains:

I think our personal experiences make everyone biased, but the bias in any of the following definitions is my own (or at least one which matches my own if I borrowed a definition from another source … like the Wikipedia), thus if there are any faults in the following definitions those faults are my own.

During this review when I use terms that are defined in the SEM Glossary, I’ll enclose them in brackets like this [definition]. When no definition exists in the glossary but might be a nice addition, I’ll use: [no definition].

Glossary page design
The top of the page is the same logo as the seobook.com website. Not even the word “glossary” merged into the title. There is a big RSS button which is visible in the screenshot but that doesn’t provide updates/changes for the glossary, instead it is tied to the SEObook book. Kind of disappointing not providing a separate feed for the glossary.

To the right at the top is a first party advertisement for search engine consulting services. This is the only traditional advertising, no Google Adsense, banners or buttons. I didn’t spot any affiliate links either when there were opportunities (e.g. affiliate marketing [definition]).

The basic design focus seems — intentionally or unintentionally — more like a single page advertorial for the SEO book than a glossary others will want to link to and use, which is a bit disappointing considering the quality of the content on the page. The same header is used for the blog and other key pages in the navigation header. It wouldn’t take much to add the word “glossary” to the logo and would help brand the page.

I like that the glossary fits on one 59K sized page. That should load fairly quickly even on slower dialup connections. The definitions and layout are clean and easy to follow and on the eyes (important). Quoted text is formatted attractively. White background with soft blue headings. Some paragraphs could use an additional line break for clarity like banner blindness [definition] which has two paragraphs sandwiched together (see red arrows added below):

Anchored definitions with 0-9 and A-Z navigation at the top, but not the bottom. Would be nice to see the navigation duplicated on the bottom and maybe even in the middle too for those scrolling through all the definitions.

At the bottom the category header is repeated.

Useful for whom?
When I looked at the glossary for the first time I thought it was a good way for Wall to organize terms used in his ongoing SEO book, but how much use would this page get by others?

At the top of the glossary, above the fold [definition], he identifies the way I search for 98% of definitions on the web (using Google with “define:TERM”). If define: doesn’t get me to a word’s definition then I’ll hit dictionary.com. Even if I bought Wall’s SEO book, I’m not sure I’d return to his glossary on the web.

Just to make sure I wasn’t a super web geek (denial alert!), I decided to ask a few folks in our IRC channel how they searched for definitions of words online. Google was the #1 response. Then I asked my wife who doesn’t spend nearly the time online that I do and a good friend who is what I’d politely call non web-savvy the same question: “when you need a definition for something, what do you use online?”

With a little more pressing from the latter respondents, the same answer: Google. Just another example of a powerful reference niche where Google acts as the #1 proxy [no definition]. Not Yahoo, MSN/Live, Ask.com or even dictionary.com.

I tend to rely upon authors to give me the context of words I’m unfamiliar with, either with a link following the term or on the term itself. In some cases I hyperlink unusual words directly to the definition. The SEM Glossary provides writers and editors an additional place to link to definitions, but admittedly with the exception of this post I’d be less likely to link to a non-dictionary, non-scholarly source for most the words in the SEM Glossary.

How were the words chosen?
The next question that came to me as I looked through the glossary terms were how did these relate to search engine marketing? PHP [definition]? A programming language. Opera [definition]? A browser. I can understand PHP, but Opera? What does the browser have to do with search engine marketing?

Also, the glossary has a definition for “above the fold” but not the converse: below the fold [no definition], which I’ve used and usually explained several times.

Definition quality
While I didn’t read every definition, the definitions overall seemed competent with some definitions providing examples with related, external links and others a single sentence or two. Where relevant there’s some cross linking like with absolute link [definition] which shows an example and links to the definition of a relative link [definition].

There is also some marketing advice within some defintions like the bait and switch [definition]:

It is generally easier to get links to informational websites than commercial sites. Some new sites might gain authority much quicker if they tried looking noncommercial and gaining influence before trying to monetize their market position.

My least favorite definition in the glossary is Black Hat SEO [definition] which never really offers any examples or definitions, save for external links. Wall sort of touches on it with:

Within that highly profitable framework search engines consider certain marketing techniques deceptive in nature, and label them as black hat SEO.

No inline examples of what people consider black hat SEO? It’s a commonly used and highly flammable term in and in a glossary dealing with search engine marketing should carry more depth. If size is of importance, perhaps cut out the PHP, Opera and John Battelle definitions and put some more meat into definitions specifically related to SE marketing.

Tools, tools
This tools link leads to a bunch of search engine related tools like link checkers, spider test tool, common terms ranking, site maps links and much, much more.

Summary and grade
There are three perspectives to consider when grading the SEM Glossary: writers/webmasters who would link to the definitions (limited), people who actually would use the definitions for reference (limited) and finally the benefit to the site owner (great). Clearly the biggest benefactor of the glossary is the site owner.

Perhaps the biggest weaknesses for the SEM Glossary are that people could be apprehensive about linking to it over other non self-promotional resources. The Google Page Rank for the glossary page is currently zero which supports this hypothesis. The first party advertising for the SEO book is minimal and definitely not offensive, but if I were Aaron Wall, I’d either change the design to de-emphasize his book and/or move the glossary to another domain, perhaps a .org. I realize this advice goes against the underlying marketing of his book which pays the bills, but if the goal for the glossary is to promote natural linking and use from people wanting to learn more from the search engine marketing terms I think it would be more likely linked as a standalone resource.

Of course the Creative Commons license doesn’t stop somebody else from registering a domain and doing precisely this which gives back where points are taken away, as long as they attribute the source. If I was rolling something like that out, I’d also create an API with access to the terms so that developers could mash the terms into their other search engines easily. Maybe even plugins for the popular blog engines so that definitions could be flagged. This might seem like too much for a relatively small number of terms, but I suspect as time goes on more terms will emerge. What, no accidense?

As for the final group: the people actually using the definitions? I think most will continue to use Google. Aaron is in good company fighting that, if he is even trying (which I doubt). Overall, an average resource that could be improved. Grade: C

• What is Search Engine Optimization? Defining search engine optimization
• About MakeYouGoHmm and authors
• Cuban’s IceRocket adds blog search
• Ice cream sandwich maker set selling in a clothes store
• Yahoo to make “speciality” audio search
• Stuck? 49 ways to crack writer’s block