What Do You Think: Example #2

Example #2: 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]

I did not view this site as being very credible or useable. I based my opinion on the many highlighted links within the text. My experience tells me that I will be taken off the subject I am looking for.

[Bryan Back]

Wasn't an impressive website that caught your attention, but seemed o.k. They may have been there but I didn't readily see the sites sources, and the site looked relatively homeade or very low budget.

[jeremy]

I try not to judge a book by it's cover, but when I see sub-par design I associate the page with sub-par credibility. The info that I could see on the example looked good, but I couldn't get passed the design.

[Chuck]

Because the site seemed to be made by a single contributor it lost credibility for me right off the bat.

[mlg]

was not sure about this one, the available info seemed like it be more of a commercial site. what was the purpose or authenticity of the author?

[David Tiley]

A ten second response. Do I pass on or look deeper?

For me the ten second impulse was to say credible. I am not bothered by the amateurishness of the design, as long as the navigation is okay. It promised interesting collectors material and probably some good links.

The blurb about children both showed a lack of deep reading in the area, and a desire to be realistic about people which was a bit encouraging.

There is promise here but not certainty.

[Debra Hutton]

So who is "I"? Without any sort of credentials or real info about the author of the web page it is difficult to evaluate. It might be credible, but it's impossible to tell from this page alone. I also question its "homemade" appearance.

[Carolyn Leck]

Example #2 "Nineteenth-Century American Children and What They Read" was slightly less effective. The repeatation of the dolls was boring while the varying blue colors seem to blend together and become distracting. There was nothing on the page to grab and hold a reader's attention.

[Steven Clark]

I felt this site was not very crediable. It lacked dates and was written in first person. Not very professional.

[John Seal]

I felt this site could be used across the curriculum in the areas of literature and english it porvides a very detai\ailed look at what kid's read inthe 19th century and perhaps could give us some evidence as to what might have been expected in the early days of education. John s. in Kansas

[Brian Ogilvie]

The site states that it was written by a collector. There's nothing wrong with that, but the link "How much is your book worth?" makes me wonder whether the collector who wrote it is completely objective. Moreover, the claim in the text that "children have been children since the beginning of time" is true but useless; there's a large historiography on the changes in how childhood has been lived and understood. And the last line, "Here you will find bits and pieces..." doesn't make me confident that the author has done extensive research on the books and their historical context.

[JP]

I was not bothered by the set up of the page. The effect they were after was to show dimension. It is not colorful and eye-catching but it does have substance. After getting onto the site I found it very interesting. In this case you cannot judge the book by its cover.

[Don Hageman]

Not an overall good design like the others, but information was good.

[Mindy A.]

First reaction was to go on. Difficult to read, no links to a bib. Looked like something a student would set up.

[Bill Wolff]

I thought this site looked sort of credible though it was in my quick opinion a work of a person other than an organization.

[Eddie K]

This site did not catch my eye. It was not appealing, and did not look that it was professionally done.

[Debbie Shaffer]

At first glance this site did not look very professional. This would be a site that I would by-pass because it didn't look appealing enough to capture my attention.

[Mike McEwan]

There is nothing that states who is responsable for the work, where to find out sources, or where the work was found.

[Mary C.]

This site was difficult to judge. The layout did not look very professional. The background made it look cheap. There were though several links that could have made it authentic.

[Greg Traxson]

This site appeared to be a personal page and was somehow missing a professional look. The information may be good but I would not readily trust it.

[A. Cephalous]

The double-duty (foreground and background)done by the plate is amateurish. Not that the content would necessarily be so--in fact, there's reason to believe that serious scholars have neither the time to learn Dreamweaver nor the money to pay a professional to construct his/her site--but the visual appeal of a site is often an indication of the professionalism of its creator.

[M. Ballard]

Not easy on the eyes. Not sure info would be historically documented

[Jeremy Neville]

I saw a lot of dates in the text which made me think originally that the site could be credible, but as I read some of the text it becomes doubtful.

[Brady]

This site looked like it may be credible but I could not tell who made it. The design was good but I could not make a decision based on the design only.

[Liz]

This site was a little harder to judge. I thought that it was somewhat credible because it listed links to the people in the information, so their was more infomration being integrated into the site.