What Do You Think: Example #4

Example #4: 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

[dwarb]

This site is broken down well. Looks like documentation is good. The mention of historiography lends credibility.

[Chuck]

Background info for the authors is an automatic plus, especially if they're credible or known people. Also, the terms "historiography" and "evidence" and "citations" make me think that these people know what they're talking about.

[Bryan Back]

appeared outwardly credible with sources of information presented. the site was detailed and appeared to offer a bounty of information.

[jeremy]

Anyone can put together a website, I need to know who these people are, what are their credentials. Are they from Harvard or DeVry, you never know unless they tell you.

[mlg]

thought this one was credible. had available information regarding the author, histiography and good complete information links.

[David Tiley]

Instant credibility, because it tells me it has an audience of peers.

Would I go further? If I figured I had a fair amount of time because I know this is going to stretch me.

But the question is not about whether I bump into a site and want to go on - that is about appeal and seduction. I would come here because I had already googled for some term that indicated a deeper interest.

As a tool for communicating research to a technical audience, this is just fine.

[Debra Hutton]

Blah, blah, blah! It may be credible, but it was so unappealing that I lost interest. Sorry... that's harsh, but we surfers have little patience.

[Carolyn Leck]

Example #4 "The Difference Slavery Made:.." used a map that seems to tell me there was perhaps too much information within the site. I felt that I would need to study a road map to find where I was going.

[Steven Clark]

My rating was based on the subjective nature of the analysis and summary. I did however like that the references were included.

[John Seal]

This site if used properly could give students a chance to use analytical skills that are now asked for in the state standards many of us are being asked to use. I found that this application portion of our standards needs to be beefed up and this site gives an excellant chance to do this.-John Seal

[JP]

Kind of cold and uninviting. It does show some credibility and seems easy to get into.

[Brian Ogilvie]

I agree with Sharon that the results of the ten-second sizing up are disturbing. This site listed the names of the authors and appears to provide information on their careers and publications. It appears to distinguish between evidence, conclusions from evidence, and analysis of those conclusions. Yet a surprising number of people seemed to think that because it didn't have the imprimatur of some institution on it, it was good. And after reading what I've read about the Smithsonian's new Museum of Native American History, I'm pretty skeptical about that site, despite the Smithsonian Institution logo on it.

And I disagree with Mike O. This site (#4) doesn't have bells and whistles--but hello, we are here to learn, not to be entertained. I detest it when someone calls a book, an article, or a website dry or dull; that is often as much of a judgment of the person who makes the comment as it is of the object of their judgment. I just spent six hours today reading an early 18th-century treatise on numismatics. Dull? Not if you want to know what's in it.

[Don Hageman]

Not too sure I'd use this site--sort of confusing.

[Mindy A.]

In 10 seconds, I liked the citation tab.

[Bill Wolff]

While looking professional I wasn't quite sure of its credibility.

[Eddie K]

This site was difficult for me to get a good read on it. At first glance, this is a site I would probably bypass.

[Eddie K]

This site was difficult for me to get a good read on it. On first glance, this is a site I would probably bypass.

[Debbie Shaffer]

This site was difficult to tell if it was credible. It didn't grab my interest enough to want to pursue reading this site.

[Mike McEwan]

Liked how they had a link to find out about the authors and the locate citation tab

[Mary C.]

There were no primary sources to this and nothing that looked really professional about it. Made me really question it.

[Greg Traxson]

This site was borderline, it had somewhat of a professional look yet lacked appeal. I would say at a glance this is good material but I'll visit another site first.

[M. Ballard]

Not credible at first glance in my opinion. I have never heard of the authors. Design was not appealing to me. I might navigate just to check it out if I had time.

[Liz]

When first looking at this site I thought it looked credible, but then it seemed more hard to tell. It listed the author, and seemed to be all right. I would sway more to credible than not. But I found it hard to tell. Plus, it was kind of hard to read.

[Jeremy Neville]

I noticed that this site does not have many links to other sites that would provide more information.

[Brady]

This site appeared professional and had the authors listed, but I did not know them and it did not say if they were associated with a particular organization, so I could not say for sure.