SilkTide - Let this web app rate your website!
polycounter lvl 18
This is cool:
http://www.silktide.com/
This is an automatic website quality testing application. It rates Marketing (How well marketed, and popular the website is), Design (How well designed and built the website is), Accessibility (How accessible the website is, particularly to those with disabilities), and Experience (How satisfying the website is likely to be).
It's mostly trivial, but it's still kinda fun to put your own site through the wringer to see how well it does.
My blog (www.jonjones.us) got these scores:
Marketing: 5.6
Design: 9.7
Accessibility: 6.2
Experience: 7.8
Overall: 6.6
Apparently, my website is all kinds of illegal in Britain because it's not handicap-accessible. Doh!
How did yours do?
http://www.silktide.com/
This is an automatic website quality testing application. It rates Marketing (How well marketed, and popular the website is), Design (How well designed and built the website is), Accessibility (How accessible the website is, particularly to those with disabilities), and Experience (How satisfying the website is likely to be).
It's mostly trivial, but it's still kinda fun to put your own site through the wringer to see how well it does.
My blog (www.jonjones.us) got these scores:
Marketing: 5.6
Design: 9.7
Accessibility: 6.2
Experience: 7.8
Overall: 6.6
Apparently, my website is all kinds of illegal in Britain because it's not handicap-accessible. Doh!
How did yours do?
Replies
Marketing: 7.2
Design: 6.5
Accessibility: 8.6
Experience: 5.1
Overall: 6.6
I think their algorythms are a little off though. Their biggest complaints is that some of my pages are all text, and that there are not enough images. However all but a few of my pages are completely images, so I think it either skipped those, or somehow didn't count the images.
It did give me some helpful advice which I followed already. It was also interesting to see my site was ranked 1,183,943 in the world. I'd always wondered how it ranked in that reguard.
Design: 8.1
Accessibility: 7.8
Experience: 8.3
Overall: 7.4
Aside from any 'technical' errors, it's subjective bollax. It doesn't appear to pick up on php or asp linked to scripts which is *very* odd. It told me that I don't have *any* intereactivity on my site when in fact visitors can post comments on news items (where available) and send mail via an online form... none of which it pick up on and both of which are pretty extensive and basic interactivity.
The test also appears to heavily penalise you for minor infridgements... 3 empty pages in 150+ full text returns a 'very poor' text content error which is total crap imho.
I think I'm going to need to chat with my advertising suppliers as they're supplying code that breaks the disability compliance which is one thing you need to look out for. You may have a site that's legal but you often can't control 3rd party content, which is an arse.
I have to say as a web designer that test like these are exactly the reason I tell my clients they're all bollax (sorry for the language but these type of 'cowboy' outfits really get my goat up!). The big problem with this stuff is you can go to half a dozen sites that do the same thing and they will all return very different results, all of it is simply to hoodwink people into beleaving that being No1 matters.
oops forgot http://www.quake3bits.com
Still, I may take into account some of what it had to say when I do go to make changes.
Marketing: 8.9
Design: 7.7
Accessibility: 9.3
Experience: 6.1
Overall: 7.6
Design 5.6
Accessibility 9.3
Experience 6.1
Visitor rating Warning This website cannot be voted for technical reasons. No votes
Overall 6.6
The warning comes from the stupid javascript ads the host puts in there, as do most complaints about poor design (No CSS? WTF?) that make any sense (Forms??? INTERACTIVITY??? What do those people think I'm doing?). Plus it tells me I'm supposed to have more links.
Plus:
Based on your webpage title, we guessed that your website / company name is "'+'". In the text on your homepage, these appear to be the most significant phrases:
final fantasy
ein neues [a new]
ich hab [i have]
[translations provided for non-german Polycounters...]
But hey, at least I'm not violating british law...
Marketing: 3.9
Design: 8.3
Accessibility: 5.6
Experience: 6.4
Overall: 5.5
basicly, no one knows about me, my code is outdated, and i still use tables not CSS.
besides...i don't need a the brits telling me my webpage is illegal. Who gives a shit what some dsitant gov agnecy thinks anyhow.
-R
besides...i don't need a the brits telling me my webpage is illegal. Who gives a shit what some dsitant gov agnecy thinks anyhow.
[/ QUOTE ]
It could affect your hireability!
"I'm sorry, Kenneth Scott, your portfolio is amazing, but unfortunately it doesn't comply with our standards and we can't hire you."
But you know what? The guidelines are so easy to implement anyway. Basically you need to use CSS, so that you can say font-size:medium (or whatever size you choose).
This means that it uses the standard font size, and people with vision problems can simply tell their browser to make the text bigger. This CAN be done in other ways, but this is the simplest.
By using CSS to position the layout, and staying away from tables and frames (which we know are evil), then the page is readable in ANY BROWSER, including ones whihc speak for the blind.
...but don't think this is just British - the USA and Australia have both have successful court cases over websites being unusuable to people with reading difficulties.
If you have coded your site using CSS and XHTML as we have all been told to for years, then you pretty much automatically pass.
Mind you, you are running portfolio sites and are extremely unlikely to have any bother.
Marketing: 5.4
Design: 9.9
Accessibility: 5.6
Experience: 9.7
Overall: 6.8
I am apparently teh design w1nz0r!
I got a 9.7 for "How satisfying the website is likely to be" even though half my page-links are placeholders looping back to the home page?
It ranked chronically low in popularity though. This I know - it's a personality thing
The only online check you should really worry about is the W3C HTML validator. Anything that runs through that thing without errors or warnings already fulfills 95% of the rules out there.
For the rest, adhere to these fundamental rules.
Marketing 9.2
Design 7.7
Accessibility 9.7
Experience 5.8
Overall: 7.7
I'm very well ranked, though
Searched for
Burnt Kona's Coffee House 1
jon murphy 12
"Your website is ranked 34,583 in the world. This is very good and shows you have a popular website."
All pages meet British legal requirements
Marketing 9.3
Design 4.6
Accessibility 5.6
Experience 4.0
This website is exceptionally popular (approx #2 in the world)
As for it not understanding my w3c code, well they changed all that code stuff over xhtml now... which I can't be bothered to understand just yet.
And I've let it test MSN and Google, place #2 and #3 respectively. What's number 1?
What's number 1?
[/ QUOTE ]
Why... silktide of course.
Design..........8.6
Accessibility...5.6
Experience......6.5
Overall Summary score for this website. 5.7
yahoo.xom is #1
i got in the 34k popularity like kona. that astounds me... o.O
and i get different results using polycount.com VS planetquake.com/polycount
Design: 8.9
Accessibility: 5.6
Experience: 7.1
Overall: 5.6
weee
Marketing 9.6
Design 10.0
Accessibility 9.3
Experience 10.0
Visitor rating 8.9
Overall Summary score for this website. 9.6
biased much?
Marketing 8.0
Design 7.5
Accessibility 5.6
Experience 6.3
Overall: 6.7
Marketing 7.1
Design 8.3
Accessibility 5.6
Experience 7.7
Overall 6.8
Popularity ranking 768,012 in the world
The thing I found most interesting was that on Popularity on Google my number one was contract work
- BoBo
Marketing 5.0
Design 5.2
Accessibility 6.3
Experience 5.3
Overall 5.3
We found your homepage attempted to redirect us to another page. Visitors and search engines are not fond of redirections for a number of reasons. Redirections stop the back button from working, which frustrates users, and create an annoying clicking sound in Internet Explorer. Most search engines will penalise or ignore websites using redirections.
WTF are they saying here? That when you click a button on my page a new window opens up?
If so, then too bad for me because I prefer that in a website
What do they mean by This website uses frames. because as far as I know I don't!
About 83 other websites were found linking to this website. (4 quality links, out of 83). The website is reasonably well linked to, although there is room for improvement.
Thanks to all you crazy Polycounters and our big button swap started by Poop!! 4 of them were actually quality links, I wonder what 4 they are?
That would explain both problems.
I don't wanna derail the thread, but are you in the mood to answer a few more questions?
Just in case...
I have a visitor counter that rolled over at 9999 and was at 86 this morning.
I emailed techsupport and they corrected it, but also told me this....
Also please be aware that you do not have an index page.
The name 'index' is a standard Internet convention for designating the 'default' home page of a site. If you do not have an 'index' page, your standard URL will not be able to identify your site, which results in the 'Page Not Found' error you have received.
In order to fix the problem, all you need to do is rename your main page 'index'.
- When you create a copy of an existing page using this method, the new copy will NOT retain any information you may have stored in interactive Elements such as your Hit Counter or Guest Book.
We do apologize for this inconvenience.
My current address is
http://dukieskinz.homestead.com/dukiesfront.html
are they wanting me to change it to...
http://dukieskinz.homestead.com/index.html
or
http://dukieskinz.homestead.com/dukiesfront/index.html
and will I have to have a redirect page? I've got 83 links out there (4 of them are quality
Answer if you want, you just seem to be extremely knowledgable (and helpful) about this stuff.
I am such a noob
The only thing it means, from a usability point of view, is that the page doesn't autoload when you type the route site URL (http://www.website.com), you actually have to type in the full page name (http://www.website.com/webpage.htm), that's what that bumphf is refering to, search engines indexing the site will return a page not found error becasue ther's no index.htm page.
The quality of your links is so subjective I'm supprised they even try to assess them... unless of course they're conversant with 3D websites on the interweb.
Design 7.8
Accessibility 7.8
Experience 6.0
Overall 6.9
Ah well let down by the overall experience
Apparently my website is ranked 611 in the world.
http://www.gamesmademe.com
Marketing 6.4
Design 9.3
Accessibility 10.0
Experience 9.7
Visitor rating No votes
Overall Summary 7.8
drudgereport.com: 7.6
ABCnews.com: 7.6
CBSnews.com: 7.8
news.google.com: 8.0
Foxnews.com: 8.2
CNN.com: 8.6
news.bbc.co.uk: 9.5 (still got hit by the disabled part though)
The quick and dirty page for my program managed to get this:
Marketing 4.5
Design 8.4
Accessibility 7.4
Experience 8.1
Overall 6.3
news.bbc.co.uk: 9.5 (still got hit by the disabled part though)
[/ QUOTE ]
LOL, that is great. If that was a California law and it was a US news based site there would already be a lawsuit.
Design 8.3
Accessibility 5.6
Experience 7.5
Overall 6.8
wee