7 Bad Evaluations from a Free Website

facebooktwitterreddit

I'm in a pretty serious relationship with Google Analytics. As soon as I roll out of bed, I check the numbers. I also check in several times during the day. And I always check before I go to bed. Because our relationship isn't exclusive, I also like to look at other analytics sites to see how well they're tracking our numbers. Some sites are good, some are not. My favorite inaccurate website is Websiteoutlook.com, which bills itself as "the perfect place for website valuation." They estimate mentalfloss.com is worth about $270,000- a steal! Because this number seemed a decimal or two off (did they mean $2,700?), I decided to ask it a few questions. Here are some of the other sites we should all consider buying if their numbers are anywhere close.

1. Reddit.com

Websiteoutlook.com's estimate: $3,766. Yes, that's 3 thousand. I am considering selling my used Toyota and making them an offer right now.

2. Collegehumor.com

Websiteoutlook.com's estimate: $3.67 Million. Barry Diller paid well over $20 mil. for a  51% share of the smartly run company in 2006. I'm pretty sure the site's traffic has only gone up since.

3. Boingboing.net

Websiteoutlook.com's estimate: $763k

4. DailyCandy.com

Websiteoutlook's estimate: $111k. According to Business Week, and a recent acquisition, that number should be a little closer to $125 Million.

5. Firefox.com

Websiteoutlook's estimate: $49k.

6. Gawker.com

Nick Denton's flagship (and virtual crack for anyone living in or familiar with New York) comes across at a low $1.13 Million.

7. Howstuffworks.com

It sold for $250 Million to Discovery last year. The Websiteoutlook figure? $3.05 Million.

Amazingly, search engines seem to do just fine on this system. Altavista, which I honestly can't remember using since 1996, and has been obsolete since 1995, has somehow maintained more than a smidgen of brand equity. The site would go for a cool $4.67 million if Websiteoutlook had anything to say about it. I'm guessing they don't, though.