Well, I’ve had a bit of time to put some effort into the Quackometer, and now it has a few new features and improvements.<\/p>\n
1. First – ‘Am I a Quack or Not?’<\/strong> will allow you to type in a name and see how Quacky that person is. More on this later…<\/p>\n 2. Secondly, we have some tables ranking web sites and suspect quacks to give some highlights for the day. This should change on a day-by-day basis.<\/p>\n 3. I have also added the first of some analysis features to let you see why the quackometer has given the rating it has. I want to make this a useful tool for quackbusting, so if you have any ideas, let me know.<\/p>\n So the challenge is this…<\/p>\n It looks fairly easy to find very quacky web sites and to score a perfect 10 in quackiness, but can we find the Perfect Quack<\/strong>?<\/p>\n The Perfect Quack will score 10 on the quackometer. This is indeed possible but we haven’t found a Perfect Quack yet. In order to score a perfect 10, the quackometer has to rate the top three sites returned by Google as 10 Canard sites. Who has this dubious distinction?<\/p>\n Just as Dudley Moore gave Bo Derek a perfect 10, I would like to award a perfect 10 to a suitable Quack. So far, ‘Dr’ Gillian McKeith ‘PhD’ tops the polls with a very commendable 8 Canards. Not quite good enough though. (Never did I think I would write a paragraph containing both Bo Derek and Gillian McKeith!)<\/p>\n If you find a Perfect Quack, let me know and I will keep an Honour Roll of Perfect Quacks. I may even think of a small prize for the first one!<\/p>\n Happy Quack Hunting!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"