After some counter-argument saying that the hoods have more than blogging, I checked all of Rome's Italy. There were about 200+ homes I looked at, and I was very analytical when I rated them from 1 to 4. Now, just so you know, there was only one case where I felt any of my own places even had a 2. Obviously, I need to change that.

My ratings are based off of 4 things: Is it themed to give at least a pseudo-ancient feel? Is it esthetically pleasing? Is it interactive or just a blog site? Is its design original or maybe informative?

In all of Italy, there was only ONE site I would have given a 3. That was in Pompeii (he did a good job).

In Baiae, I found two at 2.5, and six 2 ratings.

In Nola, I found one 2.0

In Pompeii, there was the one 3.0, and three 2.0

In Tusculum there was a nice one at 2.5, two at 2.0

In Rome there were three 2.5 ratings, and seventeen 2.0 ratings.

I gave only myself and Fabricius one of those 2.0 ratings in all of Italy because I felt that they fell within the same qualities as everywhere else.

What does this mean? Well, many of you will say, what's he to judge? My master's was in this very stuff- Digital Design, architecture, and ancient art history. That doesn't mean much but if we are to get people that come to AW simply because they hit on a property, I hope that we slowly move more in the future of getting a 2.5 to 3.5 rating. Because of this, once I get back from vacation, I'm going to push my sites to be better than the shabby 1.5 ratings I gave myself and see if we can be more interactive than a site below even the qualities of Myspace (yuck) such as flash games, ancient coloring books, chat areas and so on. I won't give the names of any 2, 2.5, or 3 ratings because it isn't fair to anybody. It just means that I think we can improve.