Recently I ran into this long discussion of criteria for evaluating web sites for qualities like authority, accuracy, currency and coverage.

It was interesting, but it got a bit personal (at least in that version).

So I decided to answer some of the questions raised by Alexander and Tate, which did necessitate borrowing their text to make it coherent. So everything in blue below is from them, black is from me.

Questions to Ask About a Personal Web Page

Note: The greater number of questions listed below answered "yes", the more likely it is you can determine whether the source is of high information quality.

Criterion #1: AUTHORITY

Is it clear what individual is responsible for the contents of the page?

That would be "Rob". I think it's fairly clear from the name.

Does the individual responsible for the page indicate his or her qualifications for writing on this topic?

Check the vita. After all, I have a masters degree, in science! If I have to post that picture of me at graduation, I will.

Is there a way of verifying the legitimacy of this individual?
(Because it is difficult to verify the legitimacy of an individual, personal home pages may be a useful source for personal opinion but use extreme caution when using them as a source for factual information.)

This page is sourced at the University of Texas at Austin. Not just any bozo can swing that. Any Bozo that is in the top 10% of their high school class can. Plus any bozo that is willing to work for minimal wage at menial tasks. So at least 65,000 potential bozos in Austin.

But if you are particularly paranoid, check me out. That's a real, semi-scientific position.

Criterion #2: ACCURACY

Are the sources for any factual information clearly listed so they can be verified in another source?
(If not, the page may still be useful to you as an example of the ideas of the individual, but it is not useful as a source of factual information.)

A number of the abstracts are referenced to publications that you could check out at a university library.

Is the information free of grammatical, spelling, and typographical errors?
(These kinds of errors not only indicate a lack of quality control, but can actually produce inaccuracies in information.)

Me spell plenti good. Plus didn't the Unibomber have impeccable grammatical skills? And a Ph.D.

Criterion #3: OBJECTIVITY Are the person's biases clearly stated?

Bias? I like rocks. I prefer Coke to Pepsi (but Diet Pepsi to Diet Coke strangely enough), brunettes to blondes, and showers to baths. Or are those preferences rather than biases? I hate Microsoft, is that a bias or a conviction?

Criterion #4: CURRENCY

Are there dates on the page to indicate: When the page was written? When the page was first placed on the Web? When the page was last revised?

Given the relationships that geologists have with chronology (have you heard of geologic time?) our idea of "current" is not the same as yours. On the geologic time scale "Recent" covers the last10,000 years. So if a geologist tells you he's done something "recently" it doesn't mean jack. I won't even go into the ages with ± on them.

Are there any other indications that the material is kept current?

The occasional pop culture reference? The continual font changes? Every year around the anniversary of the web site I get guilty and do some updates.

Criterion #5: COVERAGE

Is there an indication that the page has been completed, and is not still under construction?

This is the web. Anything that isn't under construction is stale.

So I'd say that I got between 3.5 and 4.5 "yes" answers, depending on how strictly we are going to grade.

I'm going to put in a plug for the authors' book Web Wisdom: How to Evaluate and Create Information Quality on the Web in the hopes they don't get too upset about me borrowing some of their text.

Return to Rob's Granite Page