Well, you kind of defined the problem exactly. The general public wouldn't know a planet from a meteor from a comet from a star. Just look around at some of the posts here at SDC. And the SDC audience is FAR more educated and interested than the general public.
As I said, the IAU 2006 definition was the FIRST time the planet definition had been defined in any way.
Hydrostatic objects that have "cleared their orbits", admittedly a poorly worded definition.
Objects large enough otherwise, but that are mere flotsam in the solar system. Yes, Even Ceres, the largest.
Trans Neptunian objects, a clearly defined category which overlaps with Dwarf Planets above and other categories below
Kuiper Belt Objects, again a clear category which overlaps with definitions above and below.
A specific subset of TNOs and KBOs with a specific (2:3) orbital resonance with Neptune. Like Pluto, the largest discovered SO FAR.
I think this category is worthless.
"Plutoids are celestial bodies in orbit around the Sun at a semimajor axis greater than that of Neptune that have sufficient mass for their self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that they assume a hydrostatic equilibrium (near-spherical) shape, and that have not cleared the neighbourhood around their orbit. Satellites of plutoids are not plutoids themselves."
It a reduntant reduntant repeat repeat of the more specific definitions above and below.
Actually pretty specific to Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.
Again, actually pretty specific to Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars.