What makes a “good” or “bad” Website

*** A Bad Website ***

  • Vague (little information / lots of feelings)

  • A site such as 2-channel which often features irresponsible comments by anonymous users

  • Only personal or subjective opinions are expressed—as in a blog

  • There is no original content (e.g., only links to pages that were created by other people or organisations)

  • There’s no way to identify the identity of the poster or to know if they can be trusted

  • If the content is meant for a different audience it may not be useful (e.g., if the intended audience includes only those living and having an interest in Arizona, it might not be useful for Japanese researching how the topic affects them)

  • The information should fit the type of Web page that is accessed. For example, we don’t expect to read long, detailed information on a blog, which generally offers short posts that express personal opinions.

*** A Good Website ***

  • Knowing who (or what organisation) provides the information

  • Trustworthiness of source (e.g., official site, such as the one of the LAPD)

  • Listing of events gives evidence that the Web page is associated with something going on in the real world

  • Informative (large volume of information)

  • Based on research

  • Has objective information (statistics)

  • Effective use of graphics (charts and graphs) so we can understand statistics/ information at a glance

  • Simple colours and a clean interface

  • Authorship is known and trusted (e.g., a professor or scientist)

  • If we access news it should be from a Website that is known and trusted

  • There are links to references that the author of the website used as sources

  • Balanced view — shows all sides

  • It’s aimed at the right audience

  • Plenty of examples are given

  • It helps to clarify rather than present too many complicated details

Comments are closed.