We had tried to look for a good website and a bad website which are related to the animal rights so that we could construct our ideas well. However, it was quite difficult to find completely bad or immature websites, because every site has good and bad features.
Therefore we decided to analyze one particular website and tried to learn what is good and bad points of the site.
We used this site for our website analyzing.
[Animal Welfare Org]
http://www.animal-welfare.org/index.html
--Good and Bad--
*Good points of this site
- All assertions made by the author are supported by other sites or information source.
- Visually understandable explanation (usage of a lot of pictures and videos)
- The site's contents are quite well-organized.
- The author's opinions seem to be a little bit one-way.
- There is no introduction of the opposite opinions.
- This site lacks the author's specific information.
Author:
The author of this site is an unknown vegetarian person whose age is 52.
Publisher:
This site seems to be run by a private person
Objectivity:
The author clearly declares he strongly condemns animal abuse.
Links From:
There are a lot of links connected to related sites and connecting to this site.
Date:
The information this site deals with is quite fresh. In addition, it uses twitter for the latest news.
Accuracy:
The articles on the site are quite persuasive ones, but maybe they are a little bit biased.
Evidence:
Though we are not sure how reliable these materials on the site are,
but in order to support the point of author's view, he uses a lot of external pictures and movies.
--Animal related news--
Thanks for providing the most detailed analysis of the Website you chose. It provided much more detail than any of your classmates' postings! Nice job.
ReplyDeleteCheers,
Joseph D
What I like about the AWO site is that you can see so much about their organization at a glance by looking at their home page: the campaigns that they support, their latest Tweets, how close they are to their funding goals, the latest news about the organization, and prominent tabs that can help the viewer access other key information about the NGO. But, the home page is so slick that, at first glance, one would think that the organization is more active than it is. If you look closely at their campaigns, you can see that they don't do much beyond posting some information on the website.
ReplyDeleteWhen you say that "the author's opinions seem to be a little bit one-sided," although it's certainly true, it's not such a fair claim to make about an advocacy site, which in no way misrepresents itself as a site providing balanced information on the issue. They make it clear what side they are on.
I think you're right when you say that the "site lacks the author's specific information" and that does make it more difficult to trust. We really don't know much about the founding of the organization or the people who make up its key members. That information is lacking on the site.
I'm curious. How did you find out that the author is 52 years old?
Cheers,
Joseph D.