Evaluation Guidelines
Here's some
brief guidelines that you can use to analyze a web site and determine
its value for your research. You might not be able to answer all the questions
about a certain web site. But if you find that there are a LOT of questions
you can't answer, or if the answers you get aren't satisfactory, you probably
shouldn't use that web site as an information source.
Click here
to print a copy of these guidelines for future reference.
Guidelines
for Evaluating Web Resources
Accuracy:
- If factual
information is given, are sources clearly identified? Can you find another
web page that gives the same fact or statistic? If you have doubts,
ask a librarian for help!
- Look for
grammatical errors, misspellings and other typos. A page that is carelessly
put together could easily contain factual inaccuracies as well.
Authority:
- What person
or organization is responsible for this page? If you can't tell, you
probably shouldn't use it.
- Can you
verify that this person or organization is who they say they are? **An
e-mail address isn't good enough. Look for a street address or phone
number.**
Objectivity:
- Is the
language of the site neutral, persuasive, or inflammatory?
- Does the
page feature advertising? Is it clearly set apart from the rest of the
information on the page, or could it be misinterpreted as content rather
than advertisement?
- Look for
a mission statement for the organization, or an explanation of the web
page's purpose. This might help you measure the author's objectivity.
Currency:
- Look for
the following:
- when
the page was written
- when
it was last updated
- Can you
see any other signs that the web page is being maintained? For example,
look for links that no longer work, or things like "under construction"
signs on pages that are 3 years old!
Coverage:
- Is the
page "under construction"? If so, what's missing?
- Is the
scope of the page clearly set forth? What were the author's overall
goals?
- How well
does the page cover the ground it intended to cover? Do you notice obvious
gaps in content?
