05/21/2026
Thoughtful Thursday: What Does 'Good' Actually Mean?
Two trainers can both call a behavior "clean" and be describing completely different dogs.
One means the dog hit source within a body length and held a sit for three seconds with no handler input. The other means the dog showed change of behavior, slowed, and offered something near the hide. Both call it clean. Both are honest. If those two trainers try to coach each other, the conversation goes nowhere. They aren't actually talking about the same thing.
This is the operational definition problem.
An operational definition takes a fuzzy word, good, reliable, committed, fluent, and turns it into something measurable. Not "the dog has a clean final response." But: within 1.5 seconds of determining the strongest source of odor, the dog begins to sit with paws within 12 inches and holds until released. This isn't 'my dog sat". It's the only way you can tell whether the dog is improving, plateauing, or the behavior is starting to drift.
Without operational definitions, your standard may move with your mood. The behavior degrades, and you don't catch it until it falls apart, usually in the field in front of all your trainer friends. And every word in your conversation with another trainer means something slightly different to each of you. So the conversation can't go anywhere useful.
You've heard me talk about competent, proficient, and fluent. They have definitions. Competent means the dog does the behavior under defined conditions. Proficient means the behavior holds across contexts. Fluent means it's fast, repeatable, and resilient under pressure. Each tier has measurable criteria, and the behavior has measurable criteria as well. So we ALL KNOW what we are measuring.
Most training 'discussions' in our community are fruitless because nobody agrees on what they're talking about in the first place. Operational definitions are how training stops being opinion. They're how you actually know.
What's a behavior in your dog you've been calling "good" — and could you define it the same way twice?
Be curious.