I’ve noticed several ed-tech bloggers getting a kick out of this fun but silly site. Let’s indulge ourselves for a moment by assuming the site to be a valid measure of readability. Some may feel the measure is a direct reflection on their own intellectual capacity while others (who apparently write at an elementary school level) hit the nail on the head:
I take that as a compliment, and it’s probably pretty easily explained by the algorithm. I tend to write short, active-tense sentences with not many long words. The readability test doesn’t take the actual content into account, just the lengths of words, sentences and paragraphs.
Indeed. A low-level may indicate greater accessibility. That is, one’s “content” can reach a wider audience. Of course, the content is more important than what it’s wrapped in. A high-level result certainly doesn’t mean the content is necessarily insightful. Need proof? Plug her into the site.
UPDATE: Did the algorithm change or her writing style? Miss C. is now at a “College (Undergrad)”. She was post-grad a few days ago.
Tags: ann coulter
November 18, 2007 at 10:19 am |
Hardy har. I’ll pass on giving the b&#)tch Coulter any traffic.
Diane Cordell and Julie Lindsey both drilled into the workings of the silly metrics to discover that things like navigation links, tags, and so forth, are counted, so this really is, as you say, a “silly” tool.
And as a writing teacher for HS students, my job largely consists in un-teaching all the Latinate “big-wordism” these poor lads and lasses have inherited from the dregs of writing classes.
Right words, not big one, are the way.
Embraces and osculations,
Clay