This is not a new problem. In fact, Kevlin Henney wrote an excellent article on the subject called 'Exceptional Naming', which I will link below for further reading. It was Kevlin's article that inspired me to write this one. However, rather than simply repeat what has already been said, I want to take it a step further.
In his article, Kevlin references the common habit of 'Homeopathic Naming'. We developers have a habit of adding extra fuzzy words to the end of our names in an attempt to add more meaning (as well as make them sound more programmer-y). This creeps in particularly with words like Manager, Handler, Object, Controller, Context and, my personal favourite, Service.
Kevlin quite rightly pointed out that using this homeopathic naming convention does nothing but dilute the meaning of the words being used. His example was Exception types in both .NET and Java. Since every type has the word Exception tacked on the end, the word starts to lose meaning and is pretty much just there as a matter of convention.
This is where I would like to take the discussion further. I believe that this habit does far worse than simply dilute the meaning of words. I feel that it can be actively misleading about the intent of the system.