Since I spent half an hour playing with this after being introduced to it by Ilkka Kokkarinen, I might as well try to make something out of nothing. The tool purports to classify the level of educational attainment required to understand whatever blog or other site you offer it.
Taking a run through my blogroll, GNXP ("High school") and Agnostic ("Junior high school") both fall short of my "College (undergrad)" rating. That in spite of the fact that the entire GNXP crew (including Agnostic) have at least two years more schooling under their belts than do I, and have IQs that probably average around a standard deviation higher than mine (if not more). Perhaps even more absurdly, my unserious facebook profile earns a "Genius" rating. The thing is obviously bunk (although it does give criticsrant.com, its hoster, a "Junior high school" rating).
But if you use a normative scale to rank things, people tend to pay attention, even when the rankings are tripe.
In the comments of Ilkka's post, Markku suggests that the tool probably just counts rare words. The three links I have to opinionaters outside of North America all come in as "Genius", and are the only three on the list that do (not that it's undeserved!). So he seems to be near the mark.
Hmm, "Genius" might be seen in a negative light as it requires the reader to make sense of gibberish and infer what is trying to be said but is being so poorly expressed. Meanwhile "Elementary school" is optimal, being written so clearly and succinctly that it takes little work on the part of the reader to make sense of what is being said... It is this kind of empty conjecture about dopey 'rankings' that is so useless.
Forget how suspect the methodology is. Let's use the results to broadcast something controversial! Why not start with a political slap, in the spirit of the IQ hoax borne out of results from the '00 Presidential election?
The nation's top two 'conservative' newspapers, the WSJ and the Washington Times, earn "College (undergrad)" and "High school" ratings, respectively. The top two 'liberal' papers, the NYT and LAT, both earn "Junior high school" ratings. So much for the haughtiness of stuffy coastal elites. They're revealed to be unfledged indeed!
This tool is silly, but it serves as a useful example of how rankings and indices that are arrived at without disclosing their methodologies should always be greeted with skepticism. Often, if an inordinate amount of digging is required to get some idea of what methods were used, or they are not available at all, the presenter is either tendentious, so lazy that even in granting him good faith his data entry is likely so sloppy that his results are probably erroneous, or he's disguising personal preference as quantitative data so that his output is about as useful as the information obtained in reading a daily horoscope.