Paul’s Blog






         

September 26, 2018

Criteria for Evaluating Website Content. EDDL 5101 3.2

Filed under: EDDL 5101 @ 9:33 am

  1. Is the website name embedded in the URL with a recognisable domain?
  2. Are the content and intentions of the website made clear on the home page?
  3. Is the grammar and spelling of content well-presented and correct?
  4. Is it well laid out with obvious navigation tools where you were expecting?
  5. Is the information provided first or second hand by the websites authors?
  6. Are there hyperlinks to given sources?
  7. Do you need to subscribe for a free or paid period to use the website?
  8. Are there many adverts and/or pop ups when using the website?
  9. Can you comment/report or contact website owners/writers easily?
  10. Can you tell where/why/when each piece of information was created?
  11. Does the website have privacy policies and/or terms and conditions readily available?

 

Applying Criteria:

“Decoda Literacy Solutions is the only province-wide literacy organization in British Columbia. Providing resources, training and funds, Decoda supports community-based literacy programs and initiatives in over 400 communities across BC.” (From their website)

  • Is the website name embedded in the URL with a recognisable domain?

Yes the name is the URL suggesting it is a site that does ‘what it says on the tin’. With a .ca domain so I know where it is located. https://www.decoda.ca/

  • Are the content and intentions of the website made clear on the home page?

The subtitle ‘literacy solutions’ suggests this is either a resource body or funding body. The home page shows it seems to be a bit of both but with clear ‘literacy’ umbrella. Clear concise mission statement on the home page.

  • Is the grammar and spelling of content well-presented and correct?

The website presents well, looks professional as though time has been spent on it with excellent grammar and spelling, (good literacy solutions!!!).

  • Is it well laid out with obvious navigation tools where you were expecting?

Minimal drop-down menus for easy navigation, quick to respond and labelled efficiently. Easy to navigate around.

  • Is the information provided first or second hand by the websites authors?

First Hand, written by members or affiliates of Decoda itself.

  • Are there hyperlinks to given sources?

Sources are clearly defined and available with hyperlinks and related links. This institution also has its own primary sources affiliated with it

  • Do you need to subscribe for a free or paid period to use the website?

No. There is a donation button and a shop to visit. There is also a members area for paid subscriptions that does not interfere with visitor use.

  • Are there many adverts and/or pop ups when using the website?

The organisation sells its own products that are clearly well researched and professional. No external adverts present on the site. They have clear markings showing they are endorsed and financially supported by BC Provincial Government. Website also clearly works in partnership with some other organisations and displays their logos.

  • Can you comment/report or contact website owners/writers easily?

Contact information on the footer bar but phone number prominently displayed in header as well.

  • Can you tell where/why/when each piece of information was created?

Can easily link to sources and academic information through their own library.

  • Does the website have privacy policies and/or terms and conditions readily available?

Didn’t see any, but there is a member’s area you can join where information is more readily shared so they may have them there!

Conclusion: Good website that portrays a reliable and relevant organisation with trustworthy intentions and robust information.

 

3 Comments

  1.   aeaston — September 27, 2018 @ 12:12 pm    Reply

    Hi Paul, I chose to your criteria for assignment 3.2 this week. My evaluation of http://canada2020.ca/numeracy/ based on your criteria is as follows:

    Is the website name embedded in the URL with a recognisable domain?  The website’s name is clearly in the URL and is part of a .ca domain.
    Are the content and intentions of the website made clear on the home page? If you go to the website’s homepage http://canada2020.ca/ there is a clear description of the organization’s purpose.
    Is the grammar and spelling of content well-presented and correct?  Yes, the grammar and spelling are well presented and correct.
    Is it well laid out with obvious navigation tools where you were expecting? The site is very navigable and tools are in expected places.
    Is the information provided first or second hand by the website’s authors?  Information is provided first based on research.  Citations and bibliographies are included.
    Are there hyperlinks to given sources?  Yes, hyperlinks are provided to sources and individuals referenced.
    Do you need to subscribe for a free or paid period to use the website?  It is a free website, however, there is a spot to donate to help fund the organization.
    Are there many adverts and/or pop-ups when using the website? There are no adverts or pop-ups, however, sponsor information is available and hyperlinked.
    Can you comment/report or contact website owners/writers easily?  At the bottom of the site, there is contact information as well as links to social media sites.
    Can you tell where/why/when each piece of information was created?  New articles posted on the site are attributed to the author and are dated.
    Does the website have privacy policies and/or terms and conditions readily available?  There is not a specific privacy or terms and conditions policy readily available however when subscribing to the blog there is an “I’m Not a Robot” confirmation.  I was disappointed that there was not a disclaimer stating that your personal information would not be shared with other organizations.
    Based on the criteria produced by Paul, I have once again found http://canada2020.ca/numeracy/ to be a reputable website and would be comfortable using it.

    •   pfelts — September 28, 2018 @ 2:30 pm    Reply

      Thanks Abbi, I reciprocated by using yours as well.

  2.   keith webster — September 29, 2018 @ 11:42 am    Reply

    It looks like a pretty good criteria. A deeper check against spoof or fringe sites might include a google search of the individuals involved, a ‘who is’ search on the domain. I look for .ca or .org sites when I’m hoping to find a government or non-profit source, but the safeguards on obtaining those domains is limited.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Web-Resource Criteria | Lifelong Learner – Abbi Easton

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

© 2022 Paul’s Blog   Provided by WPMU DEV -The WordPress Experts   Hosted by Student Blogs - Open Learning