Group items tagged

1) Content - The content in this article is remarkably good. It seems fair and unbiased and is written as a serious post. It provides details on the facts and the mysterious circumstances surrounding the loss of this plane 2) Credibility - CNN by itself is a reliable source. But also they provide links to outside articles on the page to corroborate their posting of the story. 3) Critical Thinking - Based on the information in the article you can deduce a lot about the plane and the issues with the search. I helps you think by mentioning important details and providing links to search for more information. 4) Copyright - This page itself was copyrighted in 2014. This article itself was posted on Sun March 16th, 2014. Meaning that it was updated today. 5) Citation - This site cites its references and provides links to them for additional information. 6) Continuity - Because of CNN's informational network this site can be updated within hours if not minutes. This up to date information provides room for new information to enter the article. 7) Censorship - This is posted and maintained by CNN so there is most likely some degree of censorship. But the comments can be posted immediately. However, if your post is tagged as offensive they will remove it. 8) Connectivity - This site is vastly interconnected both with corresponding articles on CNN.com and outside articles. It's easy to use and Easy to navigate. 9) Comparability - This page can be compared to many other pages. In fact, this article is the center of many websites referencing its information for reposting. 10) - Context - The scope of this page in context is a little biased. It tries to hint at the fact that the plane could have been hijacked and focuses on that speculation only giving a slight reference that the Ministry of Transportation has said that they aren't pursuing it that way but are looking into all of the information on why it deviated. Web Page Evaluation: Cur

1) Content - The content in this article is remarkably good. It seems fair and unbiased and is written as a serious post. It provides details on the facts and the mysterious circumstances surrounding the loss of this plane 2) Credibility - CNN by itself is a reliable source. But also they provide links to outside articles on the page to corroborate their posting of the story. 3) Critical Thinking - Based on the information in the article you can deduce a lot about the plane and the issues with the search. I helps you think by mentioning important details and providing links to search for more information. 4) Copyright - This page itself was copyrighted in 2014. This article itself was posted on Sun March 16th, 2014. Meaning that it was updated today. 5) Citation - This site cites its references and provides links to them for additional information. 6) Continuity - Because of CNN's informational network this site can be updated within hours if not minutes. This up to date information provides room for new information to enter the article. 7) Censorship - This is posted and maintained by CNN so there is most likely some degree of censorship. But the comments can be posted immediately. However, if your post is tagged as offensive they will remove it. 8) Connectivity - This site is vastly interconnected both with corresponding articles on CNN.com and outside articles. It's easy to use and Easy to navigate. 9) Comparability - This page can be compared to many other pages. In fact, this article is the center of many websites referencing its information for reposting. 10) - Context - The scope of this page in context is a little biased. It tries to hint at the fact that the plane could have been hijacked and focuses on that speculation only giving a slight reference that the Ministry of Transportation has said that they aren't pursuing it that way but are looking into all of the information on why it deviated. Web Page Evaluation: Cur

1) Content - The content on this page is good. It can be easily read and understood. The layout allows it to be read while still adding adds for other related articles. It was uploaded 3/15 and updated later the same day. 2) Credibility - The Author itself I'm not familiar with, but it also appears to be an article by Reuters. Reuters is an organization that a lot of news agencies use and are widely trusted. 3) Critical Thinking - Because of their references and ties to Reuters you can with most certainly use critical thinking to assume this page is legitimate. 4) Copyright - The website it's self only says 2014 for the copyright. But this article itself was uploaded 3/15/14. Because of their copyright it can be assumed that this article is covered by it. 5) Citation - They do use some outside images and the text itself is from Reuters. But they credit them on the page so there is no infringement. 6) Continuity - This page can only be physically edited by the Huffington Post staff. So the continuity is withheld without errors. 7) Censorship - Because this page is moderated by Huffington post themselves there is a chance that it is edited. Also the comments system seem to be moderated in the regard that you can post what you want but if you offend someone the site admin can take it down. 8) Connectivity - The connectivity to the page is good. Many users can access it at the same time and it can be used as a jumping off point to either paid supported products or additional articles written by Huffington Post. 9) Comparability - You could take the information on this page and check it against numerous sources. I checked Google and came up with many results that either cite the beginning article or copy this article directly. 10) - Context - The context of this page is really good. They maintain the stance that Heineken and Sam Adams are taking without passing judgment, in support or not, for either the companies or the parade organize

To research Daniel Post Senning existence/lineage and book existenceAuthors creditabilityJane Pratt creditabilityRandi Zuckerberg and Dot ComplicatedSteven Petrow and his contributions to the NY times

The score for this article was an 88.7-Good, based off of the criteria provided in the article "Ten C's for evaluating internet resources" by Richmond, Betsy; Everhart, Nancy; Auer, Nicole J. This is why this score was received:  Currency (0 to 15 Points)  The site has the date of last revision posted. Yes  The site has been updated recently. Yes  Frequency of planned updates and revisions is stated. No  Total: 10  Content (0 to 15 Points)  The information will be useful to our curriculum and/or student interest. Yes  This information is not available in any other format elsewhere in my library. N/A  The information on the topic is thorough. Yes  The information is accurate. Yes  The purpose of the page is obvious. Yes  The information is in good taste. Yes  The page uses correct spelling and grammar. Yes  Total: 15  Authority (0 to 10 Points)  The authors are clearly identified. Yes  The authors and/or maintainers of the site are authorities in their field. Yes  There is a way to contact the author (s) via e-mail or traditional mail. Yes  You can easily tell from the domain name where the page originates. Yes  Total: 10  Navigation (0 to 10 Points)  You can tell from the first page how the site is organized and what options are available. Yes  The type styles and background make the page clear and readable. Yes  The links are easy to identify. Yes, there is an abundance of links referencing topics directly related to the article.  The links are logically grouped. Yes  The layout is consistent from page to page. Yes  There is a link back to the home page on each supporting page. Yes  The links are relevant to the subject. Yes  The icons clearly represent what is intended. Yes  Total: 10  Experience (0 to 10 Points)  The page fulfills its intended purpose. Yes  The page is worth the time. Yes  The page's presentation is eye-catching. Yes  The site engages the visitor to spend time there. Yes  Total: 10  Mul

The score for this article was an 76 -Average based off of the criteria provided in the article "Ten C's for evaluating internet resources" by Richmond, Betsy; Everhart, Nancy; Auer, Nicole J. This is why this score was received:  Currency (0 to 15 Points)  The site has the date of last revision posted. Yes  The site has been updated recently. Yes  Frequency of planned updates and revisions is stated. No  Total: 10  Content (0 to 15 Points)  The information will be useful to our curriculum and/or student interest. Yes  This information is not available in any other format elsewhere in my library. No  The information on the topic is thorough. No  The information is accurate. Yes  The purpose of the page is obvious. Yes  The information is in good taste. Yes  The page uses correct spelling and grammar. Yes  Total: 10.7  Authority (0 to 10 Points)  The authors are clearly identified. Yes  The authors and/or maintainers of the site are authorities in their field. No  There is a way to contact the author (s) via e-mail or traditional mail. No  You can easily tell from the domain name where the page originates. Yes  Total: 5  Navigation (0 to 10 Points)  You can tell from the first page how the site is organized and what options are available. Yes  The type styles and background make the page clear and readable. Yes  The links are easy to identify. Yes, on the physical page there are hyperlinks provided that correspond to different topics relating to the article.  The links are logically grouped. Yes  The layout is consistent from page to page. Yes  There is a link back to the home page on each supporting page. Yes  The links are relevant to the subject. Yes  The icons clearly represent what is intended. Yes  Total: 10  Experience (0 to 10 Points)  The page fulfills its intended purpose. Yes  The page is worth the time. Yes  The page's presentation is eye-catching. Yes  The site engages the visitor to spend time there. Yes  Total: 10 

Content title no aut/.com/public site/ updated

Credibility/ no auth/title id/purpose to show public banding together online/sn posts

Critical thinkin/ saw tv recording..id publisher Citation/links direct to contributor's social network

1) Content - There isn't a lot of content on this page. But what there is seems accurate and posted without bias. 2) Credibility - Since this is USA today posting an Associated Press article I would say this is a reliable source. 3) Critical Thinking - Using standard deductive reasoning I can safely assume that this article is valid. I heard about it earlier and it's on a trusted news site. 4) Copyright - This page was copyrighted in 2014. But the article itself was uploaded 8:21 PM EST. 5) Citation - This article was originally an Associated Press article and they sight that at the bottom as well as giving credit to the photographer of the picture they used. 6) Continuity - There isn't a lot of continuity problems as this article is from today. It can be updated but only by USA today staff. 7) Censorship - This page is moderated fully. You can't even post comments on this article. You can however join a community discussion if you sign up and agree to their Terms of service. 8) Connectivity - This link like many others allows users to click directly on links for additional articles. However this one also adds a link to repost it directly on social media pages. 9) Comparability - This article has been reposted and confirm by numerous sites. It seems to be originally an Associated Press article that by using Google you can get more information on. 10) - Context - Within the scope of the search for "Chris Pine, DUI" this is the exact article I was looking for. It is short and easy to read and digest without going into too many details. Web Page Evaluation: Currency - 15, Content -15, Authority -10, Navigation -10, Experience -10, Multimedia -3. Treatment -7, Access -10, Miscellaneous - 8. Total:88 - Good.

1) Content - The intent of the content was to inform the readers that Sen. John McCaine thinks we need a more descisive plan for Russia. The author is clearly Identified. The content is serious. It was published on 03/16/2014 at 9AM PST. That would make it the most current edition. That is important because in the digital age information can change rapidly.

2) Credibility - The author is identifible but his reliability leaves me questioning. His only previous article listed on yahoo is one about Katy Perry's new cd being deemed a "Biohazard". The content itself is credible and posted on a valid news site. I just don't feel that he would be an authority on the matter.

3) Critical Thinking - I can identify the web page and have used it in the past. Also I see that there have similar articles posted on other news sites about this. Also he sites both The New York Times and CNN as references in the article.

4) Copyright - This page is copyrighted by Yahoo news. Any graphical contect is referenced to the original site it came from.

5) Citation - This website contains may references and they credit all of them. From the video being from Routers to the direct link to a NWY article.

6) Continuity - While it's true that the internet can change information in a manner of minutes. This article doesn't appear to have been changed since the time of publishing.

7) Censorship - This article is moderated to a degree. It's on Yahoonews so it has to be sent in and verified before publishing.

8) Connectivity - This is a publically available news site on the internet that doesn't require log in to view.

9) Comparaility - This page itself doesn't have a paper copy itself. however The New York Times (referenced in the article) does.

10) - Context - Contexually this was a valid article as my topic for this search was the US and Russia. This does have an open forum for comments to be posted after the article.

Web Page Evaluation: Currency - 15, Content -10, Authority -5, Navigation -10, Experience -8, Multimedia -10. Treatment -7, Access -5, Miscellaneous - 15. Total: 85 - Good.

3 hours for information to spread

Facebook- Digital Tool

Twitter - Digital Tool

Common misconception between "Digital Natives" and "Digital Immigrants" described in Marc Prensky's Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants article.

I think it's crucial that this may change as do people and technological advances

The use of public radio during the superstorm allowed NY residents to be informed of all happening during the chaos.

The score for this article was an 81.2 based off of the criteria provided in the article "Ten C's for evaluating internet resources" by Richmond, Betsy; Everhart, Nancy; Auer, Nicole J. This is why this score was received: Currency (0 to 15 Points) The site has the date of last revision posted. Yes The site has been updated recently. Yes Frequency of planned updates and revisions is stated. No Total: 10 Content (0 to 15 Points) The information will be useful to our curriculum and/or student interest. No This information is not available in any other format elsewhere in my library. No The information on the topic is thorough. No The information is accurate. Yes The purpose of the page is obvious. Yes The information is in good taste. Yes The page uses correct spelling and grammar. Yes Total: 8.6 I arrived at this by using 15 (total score) divided by 7 (number of questions) multiplied by 4 (number of criteria met) and rounded to the nearest tenth. I used this scoring system for all sections. Authority (0 to 10 Points) The authors are clearly identified. Yes The authors and/or maintainers of the site are authorities in their field. Yes There is a way to contact the author (s) via e-mail or traditional mail. Yes You can easily tell from the domain name where the page originates. Yes Total: 10 Navigation (0 to 10 Points) You can tell from the first page how the site is organized and what options are available. Yes The type styles and background make the page clear and readable. Yes The links are easy to identify. No The links are logically grouped. No The layout is consistent from page to page. Yes There is a link back to the home page on each supporting page. Yes The links are relevant to the subject. No The icons clearly represent what is intended. Yes Total: 6.3 Experience (0 to 10 Points) The page fulfills its intended purpose. Yes The page is worth the time. Yes The page's presentation is eye-catching. Yes The site engages the visitor to spend time there. Ye

The score for this article was a 42.2 based off of the criteria provided in the article "Ten C's for evaluating internet resources" by Richmond, Betsy; Everhart, Nancy; Auer, Nicole J. This is why this score was received: Currency (0 to 15 Points)  The site has the date of last revision posted. Yes The site has been updated recently. Yes Frequency of planned updates and revisions is stated. No Total: 10 Content (0 to 15 Points)  The information will be useful to our curriculum and/or student interest. No This information is not available in any other format elsewhere in my library. No The information on the topic is thorough. No The information is accurate. No The purpose of the page is obvious. No The information is in good taste. Yes The page uses correct spelling and grammar. Yes Total: 4.3 Authority (0 to 10 Points)  The authors are clearly identified. No The authors and/or maintainers of the site are authorities in their field. No There is a way to contact the author (s) via e-mail or traditional mail. No You can easily tell from the domain name where the page originates. No Total: 0 Navigation (0 to 10 Points)  You can tell from the first page how the site is organized and what options are available. No The type styles and background make the page clear and readable. Yes The links are easy to identify. No The links are logically grouped. No The layout is consistent from page to page. No There is a link back to the home page on each supporting page. Yes The links are relevant to the subject. No The icons clearly represent what is intended. No Total: 2.5 Experience (0 to 10 Points)  The page fulfills its intended purpose. No The page is worth the time. No The page's presentation is eye-catching. Yes The site engages the visitor to spend time there. No Total: 2.5 Multimedia (0 to 10 Points)  Sound, graphics or video enhance the site's message. No Total: 0 Treatment (0 to 10 Points)  Any biases towards the subject matter can be easily identified. No