I came across Web 2.0 validator recently and ran my website through it. I scored very low – 4 out of 42. At first I was concerned, but then I read the scoring terms…
While it’s not a joke, it is a joke.
- Uses inline AJAX ? No
- Is in public beta? No
- Uses python? No
- Is Shadows-aware ? No
- Uses the prefix "meta" or "micro"? No
- Uses Google Maps API? No
- Mentions Less is More ? No
- Uses Cascading Style Sheets? Yes!
- Refers to mash-ups ? No
- Appears to be web 3.0 ? Yes!
- Attempts to be XHTML Strict ? No
- Has favicon ? No
- Mentions startup ? No
- Has a Blogline blogroll ? No
- Mentions Dave Legg ? No
- Appears to use AJAX ? No
- Refers to the Web 2.0 Validator’s ruleset ? No
- Appears to be built using Ruby on Rails ? No
- Makes reference to Technorati ? Yes!
- Refers to VCs ? No
- Refers to Flickr ? No
- Has that goofy ‘My Blog is Worth’ link ? No
- Mentions Cool Words ? No
- Links Slashdot and Digg ? No
- Mentions Nitro ? No
- Mentions Ruby ? No
- Has prototype.js ? No
- Creative Commons license ? No
- Actually mentions Web 2.0 ? No
- Mentions RDF and the Semantic Web? No
- Use Catalyst ? No
- Uses Semantic Markup? Yes!
- Refers to web2.0validator ? No
- Refers to Rocketboom ? No
- Refers to del.icio.us ? No
- Uses microformats ? No
- Validates as XHTML 1.1 ? No
- Appears to over-punctuate ? No
- References isometric.sixsided.org? No
- Uses the "blink" tag? No
- Mentions 30 Second Rule and Web 2.0 ? No
- Appears to have Adsense ? No
As in, who really cares whether or not I mention Nitro or Ruby? How does linking to Slashdot make my blog better? This is nothing more than a meaningless set of values to be ignored.
