I'm just really confused.......

So I've thought a little bit about this. And If I'm reading it correctly, the OP wants to break training down into a science - a step by step approach with proven results.

Sounds good, but dog training is an art as well as a science. There are variables depending on the genetics of the dog, the style of the handler. A method that works perfectly in one situation may need to be tweaked for another. While general principles run true across the board, it's not always as cut and dried as 1+1=2.

What I see in top trainers in any venue is an understanding of the science with an ability to tweak it as needed depending on the dog they are working with and it's strengths and weaknesses. And this can't really be written down.

Thanks for that Mara, that I understood!

I thought about this quite a bit yesterday too, Mara. And I'm with you. I don't see how dog training can be binary or linear. There's also not necessarily only one "correct" way to reach a training goal.

It's not like providing the detailed instructions on, say, air conditioner repair in which all the variables of different makes/models/part numbers/conditions could, in theory, be organized into a set of data fields.

"Web 2.0" isn't a new thing. We are using "Web 2.0" right here--it's the evolution from the web's first incarnation where content was presentational and one-way to this more collaborative multi-way dialogue. Leerburg's Member Forum seems like a terrific "Web 2.0" way to handle the nuances of dog training: multiple people with different experiences post their knowledge and best practices--along with links to additional info, rich media, etc. It's searchable and organized by topic. One would be hard-pressed (IMO) to create a better web resource.

There are currently lots of mobile device apps about dog training--but in looking at some of them yesterday after this thread started they seem to either be a book on dog training that you read on your phone or a list of overly-simplified tips that don't really allow for the subtlety and variability that real-world dog training requires.

I guess what I'm thinking is that *if* dog training could be broken down into the granular steps that the OP is talking about, then a computer could train a dog. And I don't think that's realistic.

There's already (again, IMO) too much information on the web about dog training, feeding, and every other subject one can imagine. What we don't need is aggregation of all that info--much of it not very good. (i.e. a site where every word ever written about dog training is collected and sorted.) What's needed is experts to curate the information...just like one gets here.

What a perfect word! "Curate." :-)

Wonderfully put, Tracy. Thank you...

Thanks, Mara and Tracy, for putting into words what has been bothering me about the whole concept. You said it so much better than I could, but I too believe that dog training is not as simple as, "Do Steps 1, 2, 3, and your dog will be trained to (fill in the blank)." If it was, we would all have perfect dogs with titles galore and there wouldn't be a need for a forum like this.

Not only that, but think of how much can be learned in a few-minutes-long FREE Michael Ellis video clip. The concept of marker training (how it looks, feels) is suddenly visualized, IME, when you watch something like the Cindy/Rush/Ellis "Engagement" clip.