Web 2.0 Validator
If you ask people “What’s Web 2.0?” Different people will give you different answers. In my mind, central to Web 2.0 is Ajax and semantic markups (i.e., microformats, RDF, or OWL).
Question: How do I know if my website is Web 2.0?
Answer: Do one of the following:
- Read what Tim O’Reilly has described — a laundry of list of Web 2.0 characteristics. Evaluate whether the technology that backs you site meets what he has described.
- If reading is too much for you, use Web 2.0 Validator — an automated web tool that scores your site based on a set of Web 2.0 characteristics. Note that the tool does pay attention to whether a site (a) uses Semantic Markups, (b) mentions RDF and the Semantic Web.
Here is how my website scored:
The score for http://harry.hchen1.com is 11 out of 43
- Uses python? No
- Is in public beta? No
- Uses inline AJAX ? No
- Is Shadows-aware ? No
- Uses the prefix “meta” or “micro”? Yes!
- Refers to mash-ups ? No
- Has favicon ? No
- Uses Google Maps API? No
- Appears to be web 3.0 ? Yes!
- Mentions startup ? No
- Uses Cascading Style Sheets? Yes!
- Attempts to be XHTML Strict ? No
- Mentions Less is More ? No
- Refers to the Web 2.0 Validator’s ruleset ? No
- Mentions Dave Legg ? No
- Appears to use AJAX ? No
- Makes reference to Technorati ? Yes!
- Appears to be built using Ruby on Rails ? No
- Refers to VCs ? No
- Refers to Flickr ? No
- Mentions Ruby? No
- Mentions Cool Words ? No
- Mentions The Long Tail ? No
- Links Slashdot and Digg ? No
- Mentions Nitro ? No
- Appears to use MonoRail ? No
- Has prototype.js ? No
- Creative Commons license ? Yes!
- Uses microformats ? Yes!
- Actually mentions Web 2.0 ? No
- Uses Semantic Markup? Yes!
- Use Catalyst ? No
- Mentions RDF and the Semantic Web? Yes!
- Refers to web2.0validator ? No
- Refers to Rocketboom ? No
- Refers to del.icio.us ? Yes!
- Validates as XHTML 1.1 ? No
- References Firefox? No
- Appears to over-punctuate ? Yes!
- References isometric.sixsided.org? No
- Appears to have Adsense ? Yes!
- Mentions 30 Second Rule and Web 2.0 ? No
- Uses the “blink” tag? No
What’s a passing grade?
I tried the ebiquity site which scored a 5, but there’s not much on that entry page. The ebiquity blog did better, scoring 12.
Here were our YES’s: Uses the prefix “meta” or “micro”, Appears to be web 3.0, Uses Cascading Style Sheets, Has favicon, Makes reference to Technorati, Creative Commons license, Uses Semantic Markup, Refers to del.icio.us, Mentions RDF and the Semantic Web, Actually mentions Web 2.0, Appears to over-punctuate, Appears to have Adsense.
Comment by tim finin — January 27, 2006 @ 10:19 am
[...] Harry Chen blogs about Web 2.0 Validator, an automated web tool that determines how 2.0ish your Web site is based on a set of Web 2.0 characteristics. While Harry reports that his site only scored 11, it now scores 31! No, I don’t think he’s just been studying for the test so he could retake it. It appears due to Harry’s post on Web 2.0 Validator. Apparently, talking about Web 2.0 Validator makes your site seem very Web 2.0 to Web 2.0 Validator. Or maybe this is related to Russell’s paradox, somehow. [...]
Pingback by EBB: UMBC ebiquity research blog » No web 2.0 site left behind — January 27, 2006 @ 10:38 am
[...] Here Harry Chen blogs about the validator. What I really liked was that it led me to 30 Second Rule. [...]
Pingback by Dorai’s Techlog » Is this a Web2.0 App? — January 28, 2006 @ 8:26 pm
[...] I think this is an interesting project. First, it provides a unified and shared information space for people to discover and discuss personal finance and investment news. Second, collaborative editorial control can help to filter out insignificant news and blogs posts. Fully automated blog aggregation sites such as the Money Blog Network are often cluttered with posts. As bloggers flood the site with tons of new posts everyday, it becomes harder for the readers to find useful news that are worthy of reading. Finally, it’s web 2.0! [...]
Pingback by Harry Chen Thinks Aloud » Blog Archive » Flogz: Digging Your Personal Finance News — March 2, 2006 @ 9:17 pm