What Do You Think: Example #5

Example #5: How did you gauge the credibility of a site? What criteria did you use in assessment of the website? What more would you need to know about a site to render an informed decision? What makes a history website valuable for your research and teaching?

Comments

[biagra]

All are here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra >buy biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]buy biagra[/url]

[dwarb]

This site held little interest due to the subject. I'm suprised there was not a link to UFOs.

[Chuck]

My immediate impression was negative because of the topic. Science fiction and fantasy sites raise red flags for me right away because I do not think of them as authoritative.

[Bryan Back]

Site appeared interesting, but at a glace provided no sources of information are presented. It seems more like an opinion than stating factual information to allow others to form thier own opinion.

[jeremy]

The site seemed interesting, but it looked like it dealt with some fictional characters. While I might be interested in reading about Jeckel and Hyde, I don't think that the good ol' doctor and his alter ego are credible.

[mlg]

not too sure about this one. does not seem to have the background info available to make it credible... info about the author, why it was put on the web. may be high interest topic, but is it just opinion?

[David Tiley]

I was happily thinking about the way in which I was reacting against slickness and thinking that dowdy was somehow indicating authority, when I hit this and went "erk!".

Unlike any of the others, it is not telling its audience what to expect. Part of that is to show the reader who they are supposed to be. Code for scholarly, code for interested citizen etc.

Then I read the first para and I thought "I don't think so Jeeves.." Mr Verne has just presented his card and he is very annoyed.

There is something coloured pencil about this which says "school project" which I know is unfair.

[Debra Hutton]

Hmmm, citations...that's a plus. Graphics are cool and definately attention grabbing...but that kinda works against it for me on the credibility issue. Funny, I voted thumbs down on #4 because it wasn't flashy enough. I guess there's no pleasing some people.

[Carolyn Leck]

Example #5 "Exposing Experimentation" was very intriguing with the "mad scientist" and the mummy depicted on oppostive sides. I could see children "snooping" through this site because of the representation these pictures provide.

[Steven Clark]

This site appeared vague. I would provide more detailed information to the viewer so that they can make a more informed decision.

[John Seal]

This site is one I might have trouble using it could be used in cross curriculum studies with both science and English Deptartments but, but I am not sure how good the material could be.-John Seal

[JP]

Kind of creepy at first - most students would want to read it for that reason - inquiring minds. That is always a plus!

[Brian Ogilvie]

I know something about Victorian science, so maybe I'm not a fair judge--but I am a little skeptical about some of the claims. (e.g. Victoria became queen of England in 1837, long after "scientist" entered the English vocabulary; and Lord Kelvin's estimate of the age of the earth perdured as long as it did not just because of his reputation, but also--and especially--because only the discovery of radioactivity successfully explained how the earth could have its current temperature yet be much older than a few hundred thousand years.) The science fiction might be OK on this site, but the history of science appears shaky.

[Don Hageman]

Footnotes and inset design appealed to me.

[Mindy A.]

I liked it. Nice layout. Again, in 10 seconds just about anything can look credible.

[Bill Wolff]

While not seeming very well organized I saw the footnotes and it screamed credibility at me.

[Eddie K]

This site seems credible. Interseting design, that caught my eye. It was very well done.

[Debbie Shaffer]

At first glance this site made me think of a science fiction novel. I was not impressed with the overall appearance of the site. Therefore, I would not be interested in using this site.

[Mike McEwan]

It is well organized and appealing, but doesn't have alot of information to find out about its sources or authors

[Mary C.]

This was not authhentic looking at all! It looked like I was looking at a sci-fi page instead of a historical site. Didn't look trustworthy to me at all. From the look of it I would guess that it had a lot of opinions.

[Greg Traxson]

This appears to be a personal page yet shows much effort and planning. I would investigate this site with objectivly.

[M. Ballard]

Site does not look like it was put together well. I would not use this site.

[Liz]

I thought this site appeared less credible just because it looked like someone had just posted their research paper. Therefore how am I to know if this person was reliable or not. The title was also somewhat confusing. So I felt that it was hard to tell. Just because this individual sited resources how do I know that those resources are valid at first glance.

[Jeremy Neville]

It is difficult to tell if the source is credible. I think it is poorly organized, really plain.

[Brady]

This site did not appear to be credible to me because it looked more like a school project than a organization's site. I thought the drawings on the sides added to my perception of it.