I've always disliked "Bloom's Taxonomy"--at least in the format it's commonly presented in. It seemed both too simplistic and too vague to be of use. But I decided to give Bloom a fair chance and see what he (or rather his committee) had to say. It turns out his real taxonomy is clear, carefully thought out, and detailed. And he plainly and repeatedly states what has been my biggest frustration with poor uses of his taxonomy--you cannot identify the level of an objective by looking at the objective (much less the verb) alone.