OMG, this is perhaps the most fun I’ve had in weeks! I have determined that the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Geological Survey are tied as the worst environmental websites in the federal family, at least when it comes to delivering a message to the public. The U.S Environmental Protection Agency is middle of the pack. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (my former employer) is among the best. Woot!
How do I know this? Google has introduced a new seach tool in the advanced search options — the option to filter search results by the level of reading skills that the page requires. With just a little tweaking, you can use this tool to evaluate the general reading level of a whole website. Cool!
For what it’s worth: Here is what you get when you rate all sites in the United States containing the letter “a” (in other words, basically all 27 billion pages in the United States):
Notice any difference? Still wonder why we’re having a hard time getting through?
Now it’s your turn! Click here to test your own website’s environmental writing level. Just type your own website domain in there after the site:. Make sure there is no space after the colon. Or you can click on one of the images above and replace the URL with your own. Then wait for the news. Gulp. 
When you’re ready to reach out to a more general audience, surf on over to Microsoft and learn how to use the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease tool built right into Microsoft Word. It will help you evaluate the suitability of your environmental writing for a large audience!
Subscribe via RSS
Fan Our Facebook Page
Connect on LinkedIn
Basic: 9%
Intermediate: 72%
Advanced: 18%
That’s not too bad!
wow! what a great find – let’s see if this is enough to convince ‘The Board’ that science and health-focused websites can convey their messages without being so ‘advanced’.
btw, thanks for sharing! i’m pleased with my own site’s results
This is so cool. And very useful tool.
New sections of our website:
Basic: 25%
Intermediate: 76%
Advanced: 0
Old sections of website:
Basic: 0
Intermediate: 0
Advanced: 100%!
We’re clearly headed in right direction, now that we’re using Water Words that Work! Thanks, Eric.
Any insight onto how the tool works? What are the criteria for assigning the “basic,” “intermediate,” or “advanced” labels?
That’s a great question, Lisa. I do not know exactly how Google calculates this.
But computerized “readability” analyzers operate on these basic general principles:
* Long sentences are harder to read than short sentences
* Long words are harder to read than short words
* Sentences in the passive voice are harder to read than sentences in
the active voice.
This is fascinating! I’m not sure what it all means, but I will definitely explore our website and try to reduce that advanced number somewhat. Our agency is a special district responsible for wastewater, storm runoff and flood protection. However, not too bad to start:
Basic 5%
Intermediate 83%
Advanced 11%
Basic 35%
Intermediate 33%
Advanced 33%
Something for everyone. For a watershed advocacy non-profit, pretty good!
Thanks.
Results by reading level for site: http://prairierivers.org/:
Basic 42%
Intermediate 14%
Advanced 43%
Very interesting!
Any insight onto how the tool works? What are the criteria for assigning the “basic,” “intermediate,” or “advanced” labels?
Basic: 9% Intermediate: 72% Advanced: 18% That’s not too bad!
Any insight onto how the tool works? What are the criteria for assigning the “basic,” “intermediate,” or “advanced” labels?
Basic: 9% Intermediate: 72% Advanced: 18% That’s not too bad!
Basic: 9% Intermediate: 72% Advanced: 18% That’s not too bad!