Readability of Web 2.0 Content
Readability. Authors, marketers and webmasters know that it matters, but as communities form up around niches of similar interest, the requirements of “write like your audience is in 3rd grade” have loosened greatly. I recently came upon a piece of software called “Text Master Pro“. The program analyzes the complexity of vocabulary used in content to determine a UV (readability) score. Despite my usual refusal to use any software with the word “pro” in the title, I fired it up and ran it on the sites listed on 8 different popular web 2.0 sites. I continued to do this with their individual feeds over the course of the week to get an average readability of the content posted to their sites. Here are the results. I also include some examples below of stories on each site and their UV score.
Web 2.0 Site | UV Score |
1279 | |
1752 | |
1762 | |
1816 | |
1991 | |
2060 | |
2179 | |
2263 | |
* Harry Potter (Sorcerer’s Stone) | 890 |
* USA Today Front Page | 1612 |
* New York Times Front Page | 2500 |
- While it is unlikely that a group of people would like content ABOVE their reading level, it does not mean that by liking high-level content actually means that they are more intelligent or educated than another group/community that enjoys lower-level reading material
- The UV Score does indicate quite strongly the complexity of language used. It is interesting to look at the same story on two sites (such as the YouTube entry on the tasered student at a Kerry speech versus the commentary on NewsVine) and see how they are worded.
- The UV Score does take into account ALL text on a page, not just the article itself. This is important because we are not questioning not just the complexity of the subject matter, but the context in which it is presented as well.
URL & Title | UV Score |
iphone uk: the news so far | 1538 |
uk iphone released november 9 plus win an unlocked iphone | 1270 |
exclusive: profilebuilder acquires zingfu.com | 1613 |
Average: | 1279 |
URL & Title | UV Score |
27 tips for building a kick-ass blog | performancing.com | 1308 |
google help : search features | 1201 |
librarycrunch | 1326 |
Average: | 1762 |
URL & Title | UV Score |
fans suffer heat exhaustion at new stadium without water fountains | 2500 |
uf student tasered at john kerry speech | 1640 |
gates rejects iraq oil claims | 1936 |
Average: | 1816 |
URL & Title | UV Score |
porn in 5th grade music class | 2500 |
watch out! don’t pass out! | 1763 |
father powerless to save abused children | 2500 |
Average: | 1991 |
URL & Title | UV Score |
schoolhouse rock- how a bill becomes a law | 400 |
what the ladies need to know | 2500 |
crocs: ugly and unsafe (but mostly ugly). | 2222 |
Average: | 2060 |
URL & Title | UV Score |
full screen flash video demo | 2500 |
landscape photos | landscapes with a soul | 2500 |
milk | 2500 |
Average: | 2179 |
URL & Title | UV Score |
student tasered after asking kerry questions | 1750 |
linux hackers bite back at apple ipod lockout | 2403 |
detained zimbabwe human rights activists fined for disorderly conduct | 2500 |
Average: | 2263 |
I do not have the time, nor the inclination, to visit the Text Master Pro website to read up on their, I am sure, excellent software and the way in which it rates content..
So, perhaps you can enlighten us as to how to read these UV numbers.
Does a low number indicate ease of reading, and a high number is indicative of a higher level of difficulty. Or is the reverse true?
As for the examples you have included, I can only conclude that this piece of software rates the difficulty of a text based upon poor grammar. The better the grammar, the higher the score.
And since you didn’t tell us if a low number is good, or a high number is bad, we really have no idea what the UV number means.