Monday, 9 May 2011

Hey Lipperhey

This year celebrates her birthday with a free account for one month. I have tested Lipperhey with the website and learned the following:
  1. As Lipperhey user you are allowed to export a rtf report and a csv-file. This way all necessary information is available even if your account is stopped. That's great;
  2. Lipperhey analyses all your webpages, allthough sometimes they seems to make some small mistakes. For example they state that a webpage should load in 500 milli-seconds. They marked two websites as loading to slow. However these webpages loads as fast as other webpages;
    Note: Googles Webmaster Tools stated that "On average, pages in your site take 0.5 seconds to load (updated on May 7, 2011). This is faster than 98% of sites."
  3. Lipperhey checks all webpages, even the webpages without incoming links. In my opinion this  contaminates the results. I have double checked this and indeed there are pages without incoming links.
    Note: These pages are still alive to give a good user experience to search engine users;
  4. The code of a webpage should have a maximum of 70%, while almost all pages of the Helenahoeve 174 of the 200 checked pages seems to use more code than suggested;
  5. Lipperhey checks also non-html files like a KML file and a VCF file, which is in my opinion incorrect;
  6. There is a check on comments, which are useless for the avarage website visitor. Lipperhey states that a short comment is reasonable. Unfortunately there are some webpages with local javascript to calculate the date of an event. This javascript is hidden as comment for older (very old) browsers. I don't think this should be marked as incorrect;
  7. 33 webpages have a meta description which is too long (longer than 150 characters);
  8. 140 webpages have at least one keyword in the meta tags which is not available in the text of the webpage. Oops that might be fatal for top results in search engines;
  9. There seems to be webpages (2%) which use a capital in the location, allthough I thought that all pages use lowercase characters;
  10. Lipperhey checks also for deprecated tags, even for tags I have never heard of, like: "staking". Hmmm, what will the effect of "staking" be? Anyone a clue?
Some recommendations don't make sense in my opinion, like:
  1. An URL should not contain the document type extension .htm (or another extension) to make it easy switch from technology. So in theory it should be easier to switch from index.htm to index.asp or index.php. Hmmm, I doubt how often you switch from technology and if a redirect via .htaccess should not be sufficent;
  2. The use of mailto:e-mail adresses should be avoided to hinder spam-robots. Hmmm, I thought that an user should be able to mail with her own e-mail program. Even the webguidelines suggest not to block the mailto adresses;
  3. The recommendations for the keywords, I thought that they are almost useless.
Overall Lipperhey seems to be a good tool to use. I don't know if it's worth the money, because there are free tools like Googles Webmaster Tools and the Webguidelines Quick Scan which give you also al lot of detailed information about the quality of your site. 

For the Helenahoeve is seems that I have to check duplicate URL's (content) for the pages index.htm and interactievekaart.htm, something I already knew but never got the right priorities. Another thing to do is to improve the meta descriptions (and keywords).

Note: With Website Quality at a Glance you get a quick rough indication of the quality of a website

No comments:

Post a Comment