Back on the soapbox again.... I went searching for different Web 2.0 facts or others experiences and I came across an interesting site. The Web 2.0 Validator http://web2.0validator.com. The site is rather unassuming when you first arrive. At the top of the page it give a disclaimer to "Have some fun, but please validate responsibly". I found that somewhat amusing, when first looking at the page. I thought that the page was a real true "evaluator of how web 2.0 sites are supposed to be judged. But after futher evaluation I come to realize that the user input criteria wasn't exactly scientific in nature.
The user is prompted to enter the url of their selected site. The website seems to go out and perform some type of evaluation on the site provided and returns a set of results. So I typed in www.google.com.....you know the most obscure website I know. Turns out according to the all knowing WebValidator claims that Google only meets 3 of the 65 listed criteria. Below is a list of criteria as of 1/28/2009:
* Is in public beta? No
* Denies the existance of Rocky V ? No
* Uses python? No
* Uses inline AJAX ? No
* Rocks out to the dance noise sound of Chinese Forehead ? No
* Mentions Tag Clouds? No
* Uses the prefix "meta" or "micro"? No
* Is Shadows-aware ? No
* Apperars to use moo.fx ? No
* Mentions Neowin.net ? No
* Has a Blogline blogroll ? No
* Appears to be web 3.0 ? Yes!
* Mentions Less is More ? No
* Uses tags ? No
* Has favicon ? No
* Refers to mash-ups ? No
* Attempts to be XHTML Strict ? No
* Uses Google Maps API? No
* Mentions startup ? No
* Appears to be non-empty ? No
* Received a cease-and-desist from CMP Media or Tim O'Reilly ? No
* Refers to the Web 2.0 Validator's ruleset ? No
* Uses the word meme? No
* Appears to use AJAX ? No
* Mentions an "architecture of participation"? No
* Appears to have a Google Sitemap ? No
* Makes reference to Technorati ? No
* Appears to use RSS ? No
* Has that goofy 'My Blog is Worth' link ? No
* Refers to Flickr ? No
* Refers to VCs ? No
* Faviconized ? No
* JavaScript by Dreamweaver ? No
* Appears to use moo.fx ? No
* Links Slashdot and Digg ? No
* Mentions Ruby? No
* Mentions The Long Tail ? No
* Mentions Nitro ? No
* Appears to be built using Django ? No
* Mentions Ruby ? No
* Refers to podcasting ? No
* Appears to use MonoRail ? No
* Has prototype.js ? No
* Mentions Wisdom Of Crowds ? No
* Appears to use visual effects? No
* Creative Commons license ? No
* Mentions Neurogami and Web 2.0 ? No
* Links to validator? No
* Actually mentions Web 2.0 ? No
* Mentions RDF and the Semantic Web? No
* Refers to Rocketboom ? No
* Uses Semantic Markup? No
* Refers to web2.0validator ? No
* Use Catalyst ? No
* Refers to del.icio.us ? No
* Uses microformats ? No
* Validates as XHTML 1.1 ? No
* Does it use DWR Ajax Library? No
* References isometric.sixsided.org? No
* Appears to over-punctuate ? No
* References Firefox? No
* Mentions a blog ? Yes!
* Mentions Stickbob? No
* Uses the "blink" tag? Yes!
* Appears to have Adsense ? No
I believe some of the most telling signs that google is not Web 2.0 is that google does not have links Slashdot and Digg (we geeks all know slashdot is required!!!!), "Denies the existance of Rocky V", and it does not "Mentions RDF and the Semantic Web". All in my opinion are no no's if you are going to be a 2.0 site.
While these are not true criteria for Web 2.0 compliance. I did find another website that uses a more realistic and sensible criteria for Web 2.0. http://www.seomoz.org/web2.0 has 41 categories to judge websites by:
Award Categories
* Bookmarking
* Books
* Classifieds and Directories
* Collaborative Writing and Word Processing
* Content Aggregation and Management
* Digital Storage and Remote Access
* Education
* Employment and Jobs
* Events
* Food
* Fun Stuff
* Games and Entertainment
* Genealogy
* Guides and Reviews
* Health
* Hosted Wikis
* Mapping Applications
* Maps
* Mobile Technology
* Music
* News and Blog Guides
* Niche Social Networking
* Online Desktop / OS
* Organization
* Philanthropy
* Photos and Digital Images
* Professional Networking
* Questions and Advice
* Real Estate
* Retail
* Search
* Social Networking Mainstays
* Social News - Smaller and Niche Sites
* Social News - The Big Guys
* Sport
* Start Pages
* Travel
* Video
* Visual Arts
* Web Dev
* Widgets
From this set of criteria seomoz.org chooses the top 3 for each and provides reasons why these sites are deserving of these accolades.
Now I have to say that I don't completely agree with all the awards given, but I must admit that these categories are more realistic tham the Web2.0 Validator.
Taking my soapbox and going to de-ice it.
No comments:
Post a Comment