Privacy Test

In the previous test there where three sites with a privacy policy. In this extra test, I will take a look at the privacy policies of the test websites. In Internet Explorer 8 there is an option to retrieve the privacy policy of a specific site. When I look for the privacy policy, I got these results:

1. bol.com - No privacy policy found.
2. funda.nl - Privacy policy available!
3. helenahoeve.nl - Privacy policy available!
4. nu.nl - Privacy policy available!
5. philips.nl - Syntax error in privacy policy, information could not be displayed.
6. postbus51.nl - No privacy policy found.
7. rabobank.nl - Syntax error in privacy policy, information could not be displayed.
8. vrom.nl - No privacy policy found.
9. wehkamp.nl - No privacy policy found.
10. wnf.nl - No privacy policy found.

Five sites, including the helenahoeve.nl use P3P for describing the privacy policy. Philips.nl and rabobank.nl have syntax errors in their P3P file. The ranking so far is:

1. funda.nl, helenahoeve.nl, nu.nl
2. philips.nl, rabobank.nl
3. bol.com, postbus51.nl, vrom.nl, wehkamp.nl, wnf.nl

These are strange results, because I think all these sites does have a privacy policy. When you take a look at the homepages, I conclude that:

1. bol.com - Link to policy available at the homepage
2. funda.nl - Link to policy available 
3. helenahoeve.nl - Link to policy available at the homepage
4. nu.nl  - No link to a privacy policy available
5. philips.nl - Link to policy available at the homepage
6. postbus51.nl  - No link to a privacy policy available
7. rabobank.nl - Link to policy available at the homepage
8. vrom.nl  - No link to a privacy policy available
9. wehkamp.nl - Link to policy available at the homepage
10. wnf.nl  - No link to a privacy policy available

There are six sites with a privacy policy. These sites are: bol.com, funda.nl, helenahoeve.nl, philips.nl, rabobank.nl and wehkamp.nl

A visible privacy policy is probably more important than a P3P policy. So I will rank the sites in the following order:

1. funda.nl, helenahoeve.nl
2. philips.nl, rabobank.nl
3. bol.com, wehkamp.nl
4. nu.nl
5. postbus51, vrom.nl wnf.nl

Third Safety Test - Norton Safe Web

According to Google Safe Browsing and McAfee SiteAdvisor all tested sites are save. I suppose Norton Safe Web will conclude the same. The test results are:

1. bol.com Safe
2. funda.nl Safe
3. helenahoeve.nl Untested. This site has not been tested yet.
4. nu.nl Safe
5. philips.nl Safe
6. postbus51.nl Safe
7. rabobank.nl Safe
8. vrom.nl Safe
9. wehkamp.nl Safe
10. wnf.nl Safe

As far as Norton Safe Web knows, all tested sites are safe. Only the helenahoeve.nl is untested. It is a pity, but not strange when you see the number of users. Three sites are also tested by the buySafe Security Center. These sites use certified SSL to encrypt transactions and have a privacy policy. These sites are:

1. bol.com
2. rabobank.nl
3. wehkamp.nl

Okay, I will add an extra test for testing the P3P privacy policies.

Second Safety Test - McAfee SiteAdvisor

The first safety test with Google Safe Browsing indicates that all the test sites are safe. Time to use another tool. This time I test the site with McAfee SiteAdvisor.

The results are:

1. bol.com We tested this site and didn't find any significant problems.
2. funda.nl We tested this site and didn't find any significant problems.
3. helenahoeve.nl We tested this site and didn't find any significant problems.
4. nu.nl We tested this site and didn't find any significant problems.
5. philips.nl We tested this site and didn't find any significant problems.
6. postbus51.nl We tested this site and didn't find any significant problems.
7. rabobank.nl We tested this site and didn't find any significant problems.
8. vrom.nl We tested this site and didn't find any significant problems.
9. wehkamp.nl We tested this site and didn't find any significant problems.
10. wnf.nl We tested this site and didn't find any significant problems.

Great, everthing seems to be fine for all tested sites.

The Number of Users

When you perform such a test you will get an indication of the number of users.

All sites, except vrom.nl and helenahoeve.nl have "Lots of users". Vrom.nl got "Many users" and helenahoeve.nl  got "A few users".

Google Safe Browsing

October 2009, I discovered the site www.helenahoeve.nl was infiltrated and contains malware. See the first article of this blog. I did not expect that that was possible. A good reason to test the sites selected in the article How to further improve the website with Google Safe Browsing.

The test results are:

1. bol.com This site is not currently listed as suspicious.
2. funda.nl This site is not currently listed as suspicious.
3. helenahoeve.nl This site is not currently listed as suspicious.
4. nu.nl This site is not currently listed as suspicious.
5. philips.nl This site is not currently listed as suspicious.
6. postbus51.nl This site is not currently listed as suspicious.
7. rabobank.nl This site is not currently listed as suspicious.
8. vrom.nl This site is not currently listed as suspicious.
9. wehkamp.nl This site is not currently listed as suspicious.
10. wnf.nl This site is not currently listed as suspicious.

All sites are "Save" according to Google.

How to futher improve the website

A good website is always under construction. The question is "What to do next?" To answer that question, you should know what to improve.

To decide what to improve I will compare the website of the Helenahoeve with sites with a great usability. These site are:

1. www.bol.com
2. www.funda.nl
3. www.nu.nl
4. www.philips.nl
5. www.postbus51.nl
6. www.rabobank.nl
7. www.vrom.nl
8. www.wehkamp.nl
9. www.wnf.nl

So I will test 10 sites, the 9 sites mentioned and of course www.helenahoeve.nl

I will test these sites on the following aspects (more suggestions are welcome):

1. User safety
1. Google Safe Browsing;
2. McAfee SiteAdvisor;
3. Norton Safe Web;
4. Web Of Trust;
2. Technology and devices
1. W3C Validator;
2. Web Guidelines;
3. Accessability WCAG
3. Attractivity
1. Speed tools.pingdom.com 
2. CommandShift3
4. Visability on the web
1. Pagerank
2. SERP for business name (Google, Yahoo, Bing)
3. Lipperhey

I will also test these 10 sites on several devices. I have planned to test these sites on the following devices:

1. Textbrowser (Lynx)
2. Smartphone
3. Nintendo DSi
4. Netbook
5. Normal computer
6. Television
7. Printer

By doing these tests I hope to find a few things to improve the site of the Helenahoeve.

I will keep you informed. Suggestions for these tests and of course for the site www.helenahoeve.nl are as always appreciated.

Hans, alias WebHel

Webmaster for the Helenahoeve

Site Performance in a Graph

The faster your site, the more sites that are slower...

According to this Graph (based on Google's Site Performance) almost all sites are slower when your performance is 0,3 seconds.

% slower sites = 105 - 18 * site performance

Update 05-04-2010: At a regular base, I upgrade this graph, normally, it are minor changes. However today it seems that there is a real change in the graph (1.0s goes from 89% slower to 93% slower). The mentioned formula is not valid anymore.

Update 12-04-2010 From lifehacker.com I learned that at 1.4s 87% of the sites are slower (this was originally 81%).

Crawlstats versus Site Performance

Google introduced Site Performance. What is the difference between the Crawl Stats and the Site Performance. Crawl time is between the 0.2 and 0.4 seconds. The site is fast, except at the end of November. Strange. See this image ...