January 25, 2010 - 20 comments

Got an Ugly WooRank? So does Google, Ebay, and Facebook.

Maybe I'm just used to Website Grader always giving me a great score, but I was bummed when I ran my website through WooRank today to get a measly 56.7 WooRank.  Even though I have no idea what constitutes a WooRank or even how good 56.7 is (is there some kind of bell curve?) well...

Click to enlarge...

My 56.7% on WooRank. Click to Enlarge...

I just wanted it to be a lot closer to 100%  You know, like what Website Grader does...

Same day, same site.  97.4 on WebsiteGrader.

Same day, same site. 97.4 on WebsiteGrader.

But then I started searching around and found out that being a long way from a WooRank of 100 (what I assume is the best) puts me in damn good company.

seomoz.com | WooRank

SEOMoz, a well-respected blog ABOUT SEO gets a 58 WooRank.

SEOMoz is a great site all about SEO and gets a 58.  Now my 56 isn't looking so bad....

Ebay gets a 77.3 WooRank

Ebay gets a 77.3 WooRank

Maybe you've heard of a site called 'Ebay'?  It a great place to grab some beenie babies, or a castle or something.  Despite being one of the most popular website on the planet, they get a 77.3 WooRank.

Facebook gets an 84 WooRank

Facebook gets an 84 WooRank

Facebook is only 16 points off of a 100 WooRank at 84.  This might seem a little low when you consider their 1.1 billion pageviews per month...

google.com | WooRank

Google gets an 83.5 WooRank

And then there's Google- the company that supplies much of the data for WooRank to calculate where all these sites rank getting an 83.5... just a notch or two below facebook.  Google may be the #1 most visited site on the web (according to Alexa) but that doesn't keep them from being dinged by WooRank for such SEO faux paus as:

  • No meta description
  • Language declaration is missing
  • No geotag (Where is Google anyways?)
  • No dublin core (Never heard of a dublin core...)
  • No gzip

So what's the point of all of these screenshots and tongue-in-cheek remarks?  Simple:  There is nothing wrong with WooRank and certainly nothing wrong with WebsiteGrader, but use them as tools... not the holy grail.  The holy grail in most cases is how many units your site sells, or how many RSS subscribers you get, or whatever your metric of success is.  Don't get worked up about these rank-this or rank-that.

And if you want a really good laugh, go to Woorank.com and try to get the woorank OF woorank.com.


Vincent Battaglia
January 25, 2010 at 6:53 am

Hi Bradley,

I'm Vinch from WooRank.
Thank you for that great analysis of our service!
I just wanted to add that WooRank rank has to be seen as a relative value, not an absolute.
If your rank yesterday was 56.7 and today it's 58.4, your website is better than yesterday. It's not good, it's not bad, it's better.
The overall average for now is 51.1 so you're above the average (on more than 15000 different websites).
You can see here the distribution of all ranks –> http://www.woorank.com/en/ranking/stats (ranks between 40 and 60 are pretty common).

Thank you for the feedback!

    October 2, 2011 at 6:43 pm

    Quite honestly your reports are a crock. How you have the audacity to come and say “yesterday was 56.7 and today is 58.4″ when the whole thing is a heap of bull anyway I really don’t know.

    Nobody cares about DMOz or Compete or half of the Carp/Goldfish info you are using to rank things it is nonsense.  You should be ashamed of being  source for all the SEO con merchants giving SEO a bad name IMHO

      Vincent Battaglia
      October 2, 2011 at 10:01 pm

      Dear Sergey. I’m not ashamed because WooRank has helped a lot of people to detect SEO errors and resolve them. Don’t focus on the score, it’s not the WooRank point. It’s just to have an idea. Advices are the most important thing.

    February 20, 2012 at 12:37 am

    Hi Vinch – our woorank page http://www.woorank.com/en/www/taw.com.au doesn’t pick-up our facebook likes, we’ve got a quite a few. Are we doing something wrong?

January 25, 2010 at 11:57 am

Hey Brad – you ran http://www.seomoz.com, which isn't a site! It just redirects to http://www.seomoz.org

    January 25, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    Oh whoops! Well it got an awfully
    high score for a redirect. Did you
    run the .org and see what it got?

January 25, 2010 at 3:39 pm

We scored a 64 :)

April 22, 2010 at 4:34 am

got an 80.5 but gzip appears to be incorrectly reported for our domain. not sure why, but after checking out a few other uk universities it appears we all have no whois registrant info. not sure if that’s the cause, but doing a fiddler lookup of our site, and checking cache box settings reveals we definately ARE using gzip compression.

tried getting in touch with woorank a few times but they’ve just appeared to ignore the bug.

Carter Cole
May 21, 2010 at 11:08 pm

mine got a 39.4 i saw it and didnt give it much thought most automated analysis is very inaccurate and reports problems so they can “fix it”… awesome work showing how the big names get bad scores too

eng. Ilian Iliev
September 12, 2010 at 11:19 pm

Hi Bradley,

you must have in mind that sites like Ebay, Facebook etc. does not need a great rank. They already have millions of users. Most of them attracted with some marketing and other tricks, but they already have these users, and evryone has heard of them, so if they continue to provide them with good content their rank will have no value.

tom james
September 13, 2010 at 1:37 pm

Scoring 44.0 on a brand new, think myself thats a decent starting point.

    April 3, 2011 at 4:29 am

    my site value are dynamic at woorank ,sometimes 4,xx but in the next hours,it changes to 3,xx ….and then its change again.
    weird..or there is something wrong with my site.

April 29, 2011 at 6:30 am

We get 4-5K visitors but are doing a lousy job selling the items on the right border.

June 22, 2011 at 9:02 pm

I just noticed a ranking from woorank and wondered how they get their information. I usually don’t mind rankings because I am a new website and obviously learning and growing but this time they put the wrong location. They had me in Arizona( I am not) they put I had no sitemap.xml and I do and many other things just not accurate. I really don’t get the point of rankings, especially inaccurate ones. I agree with Carter Cole with the fix it analogy.

October 2, 2011 at 6:29 pm

Woorank SEO reports and hijacking of those sites searched SERPS are a big scam!

Facebook Trick
January 24, 2012 at 3:41 am

exactly woorank algorithms are stupid

March 1, 2012 at 3:14 am

Thanks for the insight, now I won’t have to lose sleep over my woorank’s imperfect score anymore.

Durban Web Design
March 21, 2012 at 5:13 am

My website scored an awesome 58%. Actually 58.7 percent. But in’s t this is the same with Alexa??

Ivm Group
March 12, 2013 at 6:21 am

just use it as direction .. it show how to imrove usability .. the pages like facebook dont need sucha stuff …they dont care about this 😀 … but we have to

Harry Torry
October 18, 2013 at 12:51 am

You’re comparing these mega-sites but I don’t think it’s a fair comparison. Large sites, well everybody already knows about them. They don’t need to invest in making people find them, but to give a better user experience.

Google does however have a description when searched for, although I’m unsure how it’s done!

Leave a Reply