Great Web Tool

[allaboutmadonna.com]

Test Your Site http://sitescore.silktide.com/index.php

[DWD]

http://www.danzfamily.com

I scored a 7.7 for whatever that's worth. Their biggest criticism is that I'm in violation of the British Disability Discrimination Act. I'm not going to lose any sleep over that.

[TCH-Thomas]

I tested a few sites, microsoft was one of them...

 

Results:

This website does not appear to have been programmed correctly

This website appears to be in violation of the British Disability Discrimination Act

This website uses redirections, which annoy users and reduce ratings in search engines

This website is extremely well linked to

This website is exceptionally popular

This website is very quick to respond

 

Im not saying it might not be a good tool, but it also tells me that programming correctly is one of the toughest things for a webdeveloper and not many can do it 100% correct, which I assume affects any disability discrimination acts and will reduce ratings.

 

The funny thing too is that this validator tells me I have 192 errors while validator.w3.org tells me I have 64 errors. Which one should I trust?

[TCH-Don]

I would not put a lot of faith in sites like this,

As pointed out, popular sites did not fair well when tested.

 

Its hard to automate evaluating a site for so many things.

Thats why SEO people are worth so much.

[TCH-Dick]

Just a couple of side notes,

Microsoft is not a great site to use for testing the quality of any of these services. Your best bet if you want to test a service like this use http://www.w3.org/.

 

The British Disability Discrimination Act is similar to the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. So if your site meets W3C standars then you should comply with the British Disability Discrimination Act.

[TCH-Bruce]

I ran this on both my site and my work site. Scored 8.2 on mine and 8.5 on our work site.

[TCH-Rob]

I get dinged on my index page taking too long to load, it is 28k. Here is the best part; "We found 441.2 links per page on your website, which is way too many."

 

Then;

 

"Webpages are large and will display relatively slowly. This is particularly important for the homepage."

 

and

 

"Your website responded in 0.37 seconds, and your homepage downloaded in 0.57 seconds. This is very fast and suggests your website is running on a sufficiently powerful web server."

 

But I got an 8.0

 

Oh well, maybe next time.

[Deverill]

Other than being "penalised" for some British disabilities act, I found a few other things interesting.

Recommendations: Consider adding more interactive forms to the website. For example, a login area, a contact form, a request to join a mailing list.

Why should I add a form for the sake of adding a form? How does that make my site any more interactive? It seems a contrived metric to me.

 

Also,

The following 2 features were specifically identified: News, Advertising or Sponsorship. Generally, our analysis detected a negative selection of text and features.

- the only thing is that I say our daycare is "sponsored by" the church. What a lame reason to dock a site.

 

Agreeing with others, look at it, enjoy it, see if anything is reasonable that they suggest but then set it aside and don't take it for more than it's worth.

 

It is good food for thought in a couple of cases on my sites though, thanks for the site!

[DarqFlare]

Whoo-ah. 7.8. Yeah baby.

 

Let's see, 9.2 on marketing. If I believed that, then I'd sit here and say all the work I've put into OMGN is paying off.

 

9.6 on design? The thing complained that I used tables for my design! Gah! Inconsistent. I like tables... Evil divs.

 

5.6 on accessibility? What? Oh, it's because my website is supposedly illegal in Britain...

 

9.9 on experience? How on earth can a program experience a website?!

 

I'm well linked to and well visited. Wonderful, I already knew that.

 

Novelty tool at best.

[jslagle]

9.6 on design? The thing complained that I used tables for my design! Gah! Inconsistent. I like tables... Evil divs.

I tried one of my personal sites, landmarkcockers.

 

I got a 9.2 on design. This is a small site, 6 total pages. 5 of them including the index page contain tables. Here's one of their comments:

 

"Design makes proper use of modern technology (no table-based layout)"

 

I assume I have somehow invented a "Stealth" Table. Where do I apply for the patent?

[TCH-Thomas]

Where do I apply for the patent?

 

2nd floor, 4th door to the right.

[jslagle]

Where do I apply for the patent?

 

2nd floor, 4th door to the right.

Thanks, I'll go over during lunch.

[sts]

I have stealth tables too

 

This is really funny tool

 

Detailed breakdown

Rating: excellent

For: No of images

Details: We found an average of 4.6 images per page.

There appears to be little variety in the images within this website (2.4 unique images per page).

Recommendations: You may wish to add more diverse images to make your website more interesting.

Why would I if "no of images" is excellent?

 

It says I violate British legal requirements because one page includes <embed> tag for flash, but if I don't use <embed> it will discriminate users of Mozilla.

Major dilemma

[TCH-Don]

Details: We found an average of 4.6 images per page.

 

maybe you need to finish that .6 image to round it off to 5