Then I tried a number of sites with worthless huge hero images and got scores in the 80s.
I mean like all ai, take this with a grain of salt, but I think there is an obvious bias in this to the 'giant hero image that goes all the way to the fold' design that a lot of low effort start-up websites use.
It does have an AI running the analysis. I like my poetry website. Maybe the AI was trained on good poetry and reacted poorly to my stuff?
Looking at the "similar scores" carousel for higher scores was primarily huge hero images with little text.
https://myraah.io/index.php/visualmind/report/aHR0cDovL2pzen...
I think the later makes more sense. Some kind of input from the users like "I actually liked the website visually" when the algorithm gives a low score and vice-versa would help the model be more accurate?
Providing a "what people might like better statistically" service is interesting, claiming you have a "the AI knows how the user will feel" algorithm is not a good strategy