Website quality evaluation tool

URL of the website you want to evaluate:. In order to have the fairest and most accurate evaluation, kindly answer all questions. Thank you. Quality of the website content production. EN FR. Health website evaluation tool.

URL of the website you want to evaluate: In order to have the fairest and most accurate evaluation, kindly answer all questions. Yes, valid HTML links to the source information are provided Yes, a bibliographic reference to the source of information is given Yes, but the contents on the website are originally written by the editor No, no reference to the source of information is made Don't know The website provides information on treatments, medications, diets Yes No The advantages and disadvantages of each topic are described Yes No Don't know.

There are only two phrases related to these, and microwaves is mentioned four times. This tool judges readability. Tober points out that more general interest sites should be easier to read than academic or specialized sites, which makes sense. All three of the sites we are looking at in this article are general interest. The tool scores this largely on sentences being too long.

A new page was used here to see how content from another authoritative website know for comprehensive coverage would perform. A very important page one story from the New York Times was used which discussed the completion of the Iran Nuclear Deal the day it was announced. Clarity Grader agrees with Tober: people like quick reads, so shorter is better. Our top two boiled egg pages for eHow scored The Kitchn had similar scores — I expect they would be better.

The Times page has words. Aim for 60 or above on the Flesch readability scale. The tool finds the average number of words on a page, a sign of comprehensive coverage mentioned by the Search Metrics Report. They offer a plethora of metrics, but most measure technical aspects of a webpage. It crawls a sample of 10 pages linked from the page you provide. The purpose of automated grading is usually to get around hands-on reviews of web pages for quick spot checks.

This metric is the most difficult to judge, and perhaps the most important. Our results are correlational for the keyword tools: Google could be using other ranking signals to put many phrases from the same page high in the SERP. There may well be a feedback loop here: sites with pages that are more comprehensive will tend to get more links because users judge comprehensive as good content.

Search Metrics demonstrated that this correlation is strong across hundreds of websites. MarketMuse is not using correlations. Do their machine results match a more complex read of a page by a human to judge success? Judge for yourself. This is a bit tough to judge for accuracy. We saw the reverse of what we would expect, with eHow doing best and the New York Times doing poorly! Some websites benefit from being more challenging to read. For example, the complexity draws people to The Times and means time on site is longer—a good ranking signal.

Further, The Kitchn should not have come in below, though close, to eHow. Machines are challenged in their grading process — ultimately some very, very complex artificial intelligence can be employed to evaluate content on a website. Tober mentioned the eHow pages are written based on keyword placement without enough regard to content usefulness. Reading one of their egg articles, I immediately frowned on the big focus of using a microwave to cook eggs — that might explode.

How much thought really went into that piece? Holistic coverage of a topic is useless if the base advice given in a web page is questionable at best. Why encourage people to do something dangerous if your site is all about advice? The second sentence of the article admits that explosions could occur if you follow their advice.

It was a rival watt micro R. Give computer algorithms a couple of years, and I bet they will be able to spot complex problems with on page logic.