Wednesday, May 6, 1998
I'm a long-time peruser of Netsurfer Digest, and I've often found your pointers useful. However, I also find that the quality/credibility of the sites varies quite a bit. One of the unique characteristics of the Web - a strength or a weakness depending on your viewpoint - is that anyone can publish. This puts a heavy burden on the viewer and reviewer to evaluate the accuracy, currency, and authority of the site.
I'd strongly recommend that your FAQ include some serious discussion of the techniques you use to evaluate the credibility of sites you feature. For example, I can't tell from your reviews how long ago you visited a site. You should also review the many sites that provide guidance to surfers in evaluating the credibility of what they see. Most such sites are a bit dull by your usual standards, but they are important!
Here are a few typical sites to give you a flavor for what's available, from a bibliography by John Goldsmith.
Harris, Robert. Evaluating Internet Research Sources.
Ciolek, T. Matthew. Today's W WW, Tomorrow's MMM: The Specter of multi-media mediocrity. Educom Review, 32(3) May/June 1997.
Shapiro, Jeremy and Shelley Hughes. Informati on Literacy as a Liberal Art: Enlightment proposals for a new curriculum. Educom Review, 31(2) March/April 1996.
Ragains, Patrick and Janet Owens. Evaluating; Information Sources: 'How Can I Tell if This Book or Article Is Any Good?' University of Nevada - Reno.
Richmond, Betsy. Ten C's for Evaluating Internet Resources. University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire.
Patterson, Shawn, Alan Wendt, and Robert Schroeder. Evaluating Information on the Internet. University of Detroit - Mercy.
Schrock, Kathleen. Kathy Schrock's Guide for Educators: Critical Evaluation Surveys. Nathaniel H. Wixon Middle School, South Dennis, Mass.
Henderson, John and M. Poulin. T is for Thinking. Ithaca College Library.
Alexander, Jane and Marsha Tate. Teaching Critical Evaluation Skills for World Wide Web Resources. Wolfgram Memorial Library, Widener University.
University of Washington Libraries. Teaching Students to Think Critically about Internet Resources: Community College Symposium on Teaching, Learning, and Technology. University of Washington, June 17-21, 1996.
Tillman, Hope. Evaluating Quality on the Net.
Rettig, James. Putting the Squeeze on the Information Firehose: The Need for Neteditors and Netreviewers.
Stepno, Bob and Bob Henshaw. Quality of Information...and Disinformation Online.
Grassian, Ester. Think ing Critically about World Wide Web Resources.
Kirk, Elizabeth E. Evaluating Inf ormation Found on the Internet.
Memorial University, Newfoundland, Canada. Internet Source Validation Project.
Scholz, Ann. Evaluating World Wide Web Information.
Jones, Debra. Critical Thinking in an Online World.
Ciolek, T. Matthew and Irena Goltz. WWW Virtual Library: Information Quality.
Ciolek, T. Matthew. The Six Quests for The Electronic Grail: Current Approaches to Information Quality in WWW Resources.
Smith, Alastair. Evaluation of Information Sources. (Part of WWWVL-InfoQuality) [08 May 1996]
Smith, Alastair. Criteria for Evaluation of Internet Information Resources.
Argus Associates, Inc. Clearinghouse: Rating System.
Caywood, Carolyn. Library Selection Criteria for WWW Resources.
Janicke Hinchliffe, Lisa. Resource Selection and Information Evaluation.
Ormondroyd, Joan, Michael Engle, and Tony Cosgrave. How to Critically Analyze Information Sources.
Sonoma State University. Critical Thinking Community. (Subject directory of resources about critical thinking)
December, John. Challenges for Web Information Providers. Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine vol 1, no.6 (1994) pg. 13.
Ciolek, T. Matthew. Information Quality WWW Virtual Library: The Internet Guide to Construction of Quality Online Resources.
Descy, Don E. Evaluating Internet Based Information.
Engle, Michael. Evaluating Web Sites: Criteria and Tools.
Grassian, Esther. Thinking Critically about World Wide Web Resources.
Legalonline Editors. Criteria: How We Picked.
Lehigh University Library Services. Evaluating Scholarly/Information Sites on the Web.
JQ Johnson - Academic Education Coordinator, University of Oregon
I'll try to briefly answer some of the questions
posed above. No more than two weeks pass between the time I assign articles
to our writers and the time we go to press, so to speak. More likely it's a
week or less. I check all URLs in an issue the day before.
I don't specifically look for credibility when choosing sites. If I did,
NSD would be a tad dry and besides, I trust our readers to think on their
own. On the other hand, I do demand a certain level of credibility when a
site discusses topics that could potentially cause harm by misleading
readers. We've reviewed numerous medical sites, some corporate and some
personal - look at the sites in this issue (4.14) for examples. By most
standards, the corporate site, with the backing of Johns Hopkins, is more
credible than the recipies of a 79-year-old individual. Yet nobody is going
to harm themselves by following Rosemary's advice; in fact, it's close to
the advice I get from my own dietician.
On the other hand, people who use homeopathy or some other alternative
therapies can do harm if they choose to supplant standard medical advice
with those treatments. And no double blind studies to my knowledge have
shown homeopathy to have a benefit beyond the placebo effect. Ergo, no
homeopathy in NSD.
I agree that the critical thinking sites are "dull" but "important" but NSD
isn't about dull. There are many sites out there on the Web that our
readers "should" visit, but my job is to find sites that they'll "want" to
visit. It's a distinction I have to make every day. On the other hand, it's
important enough to take up a significant portion of a Letters to the
Editor, at the top of the page. Fair 'nuff? - LN
I was just reading "Netsurfer Digest Letters to the Editor #4.06" and was annoyed by the italics in which the editors' comments are formatted. On-screen text in italics is harder to read than plain text. Instead of using italics for your editors' comments, how about using colored text?
Mike Sage
OK. - LN
I want to offer a big thank you for your marvellous weekly digest. As someone without time to surf, I look forward eagerly to the arrival of your e-mail and immediately visit all sites and bookmark the best for later visits. Great stuff! Keep it up!
Bobby Davison - Dublin, Ireland
Thank you very much for an excellent service. I enjoy every edition.
Thorbjorn Koch - Askim, Norway
How do I nominate you for a Webby award? I've been a reader forever and love this site!
Jim Beard - Dayton, Ohio
I just wanted to let you know how much I enjoy and appreciate Netsurfer Digest. I receive quite a few Internet newsletters, but yours is the one I look forward to the most - it's fun, eclectic, and informative. And on top of that, it's free! Thanks to you and all the staff for producing this fine publication.
Jerry Burleson
I really enjoy NSD. Always has a number of sites to bookmark.
Terry Newman
Having been a writer and journalist for 15 years (mostly in computers), I've seen a lot of Net stuff. Personally, I find your pub the best, at least the best of what I subscribe to and read regularly. Keep doin' it.
Dennis Collins
I just wanted to tell you how useful and entertaining I find your newsletter. I look forward to every issue. Keep up the good work!
Sue
Thank you for your service.
Issue 4.09 is one of the best Netsurfer Digests ever! I have bookmarked nearly every item. I have been reading Netsurfer since March 1995 and find it one of the best sites on the Net. I recommend it to everyone I can.
Kari Rubin
I realize you must get a great deal of messages like this, but I have to tell you that Netsurfer Digest is the one item that I look forward out of all of my "subscriptions". It is always a joy to see a new edition. Please keep up the great work.
Doug Donahue
I have been a Netsurfer subscriber for a long time and have watched the evolution of your program with great enthusiasm. You always seem to have serveral things of interest; some I wonder how on Earth you came across. I am also impressed with your useage of HTML attachments, a wonderful Web tool, rarely used - mastered by Netsurfer. Keep up the great work!
Charles P. Watson
Very good edition this week. Keep it coming!
Walt
Thanks for an excellent service - quite possibly the best guide to what's new and interesting on the Net. This is a service I'd pay for - and I can't think of too many I'd say that about.
David Lighthall
NSD just gets better and better. It has a good mix of sites. I have been reading it since winter 1995 and I think you guys are doing a great job! Keep it up!
Anders Strom
Dear live, overworked, underpaid human,
I received your e-mail. It was written in such a nice, candid way that I really look forward to reading the digest.
That's all! Thanks.
dy
We have just subscribed to your pub. What a welcome relief! We like you guys! Good, interesting, relevant, cool.... Need we say more? Yay! We're just pleased we found you - keep up the good work (for want of a better cliche....)
Rowan McArthur
I'd like to thank you for featuring Anne Harris and her digital artwork in NSD 4.08. As Anne's webmasters, we're delighted to see so much activity, and thank you for doing something that is bringing her a great deal of pleasure in terms of new fans. She's really been making a splash in several online communities, including active interest in her activities from the world's top gerontologists.
We take care of Anne's pages, not because she can't do the job herself, but because she really wants to make the best use of her time in terms of producing more of her art. She's a very wise and special lady who we treasure.
It's great to see her becoming able to impact still more lives with her very special way of speaking to our hearts.
Norman MacLeod
Wow! Thanks for including me! My log suddenly went wild and some of the responses I got mentioned having seen Netsurfer. So I looked you up and have subscribed - a whole new adventure. My total hits today were near 3,000, whereas 400 was the average before your complimentary article. A real trip!
Anne Harris, on cloud 9
Thank you for that great review of my Web site in NSD 4.07. I was quite pleasantly surprised to read your article about Adventure Living.
Adventure Living has been reviewed on over 100 Web sites and has been endorsed as one of the best sites on the Web by Microsoft, WebTV, HomePC Magazine, SmartTV Magazine, Sympatico NetLife Magazine, Big Yellow, Virtually California, Xtra, AllWorld Internet Services, Earthlink, KASN TV channel 38 (UPN in Little Rock, Ark.), Escape Magazine, Web Entrepreneur Magazine, and many others, yet your review is by far the most eloquent and complimentary. Thank you.
By the way, just so you know, my right arm is functional again. It has been over 26 months since the accident and I have regained 90% of my original mobility and 80% of my original strength.
I have been a long-time reader of NSD. Every time an issue was sent out, my friends would forward it. Today I noticed that you rely on the number of subscribers for your demographics. Well, now I am an actual subscriber.
I have always enjoyed NSD. I appreciate the way it is written and the sites it highlights.
Carl
P.S. This is the first time my site has been reviewed in a publication I normally read.
That means something, but I don't know exactly what. - LN
I would like to congratulate you on providing a stable, easy link to Communicator 4.05 for Mac. I have been trying to get at it from Netscape's Web site for two days without luck.
Once again, Netsurfer has come through. For a while there you guys were getting a little obscure, but you have outshone yourself here. More sexual and weird stuff, please! Less history, more technology!
Franklin Moore
Whoa, you folks really did it this time! I must have bookmarked at least 90% of the sites in this issue to visit again (and again, and again). I was especially delighted with the site on St. Kitts and Nevis. St. Kitts is like our second home, and the site is absolutely wonderful - easy to navigate, wonderful pictures, and, of course, all about one of our favorite places in the whole world!
Thanks for your digest and all the recommendations you make.
A very satisfied reader
Thank you very much to whomever wrote those very nice words about my web site, Steven Shaw's New York Restaurant Reviews, in your April 20, 1998, issue.
Steven Shaw
I read with interest about Preview Travel (NSD 4.05). I have used them, Travelocity, and MSN's Expedia Travel. Preview in my opinion finds the lower prices. However, none of them ever list Southwest Airlines in their searches. Anybody that's anybody, including Californians, knows that Southwest Airlines keeps the prices low where it offers service. I have yet to figure out why Southwest is never listed. Any ideas?
Dan Johnson
This is strictly a guess, but maybe Southwest doesn't offer as big a cut of the ticket price to agents? - LN
I've been a subscriber of your fine publication from day one, and I must say that usually you're right on the mark. I've always anticipated and enjoyed reading your monthly issues. In NSD 4.05 however, you highlight and promote a site as "one of the best corporate sites that we've ever seen". How much stock do you have in the Rogers Group? This site navigates well, but is the Ford Pinto of design. The Rogers Group's site is a "cookie cutter" Web site, put together unimaginably using Microsoft Front Page. The site's graphics are poor, the design uninspired, and the use of large italicized fonts instead of custom graphics is lazy. I was disappointed and I might add confused as to what makes this site such a winner. Am I missing something?
Kevin Storm
Where the Rogers site excels for me is in its
mineralogy presentation. The site goes beyond the strictly commercial
aspect. I enjoyed reading about the minerals and how each might be relevant
to the construction industry. Heck, most of the info has nothing to do with
the industry - it's info for info's sake.
I'm hardly saying that all companies should pay the bucks for research and
page cost and whatever. I doubt it would pay for itself. I don't know what
benefit Rogers derives from their extra effort - and not every company that
does this is going to get press. But whatever the reason, it caught my eye,
or should I say brain. - LN
Have you guys thought about making a Canadian version of your digest? Do you know of one? Does this interest you?
J. A. Ron
Heck, the NSD you know and love now is practically a Canadian version. I'm in Montreal, there's another writer in Montreal, and our sub-editor extraordinaire lives in Cornwall, Ont. - LN
I don't know how to express this without sounding insulting, but I find myself compelled to comment on a reference to the Battle of Hastings in "How Many IRS Dollars Do You Suppose Went into This?" (NSD 4.07). If you turn 1099 upside down, you get 6601. Since the Battle of Hastings was in 1066, I presume this was an error in judgment instead of a quirky prediction of the future. Since we learned from the past, I doubt if we are condemned to repeat this bit of history in a few thousand years.
Joe Hardegree
Ah, well you see, our Digest requires advanced mental
gymnastic abilities from our readers. You need to turn each digit upside
down in its own position within the string using horizontal mirror symmetry:
1099
You also need to imagine the one as a bar. In fact, all it takes is one
well stocked bar for this whole convoluted
geometric/mathematical/bureaucratic pun to make perfect sense. Truly a
mentally taxing exercise, wouldn't you agree?
But then, just like the IRS, we do expect a lot from our readers. - AB
1066
Since you seem to think Spamford Wallace has the right to be an asshole, I have canceled my subscription after about four years. Your attitude on spamming really sucks. You say that there is a difference between doing something and saying your going to do something. Ever heard of conspiracy? Considering Spamford's record, there is no doubt in my mind that he will do what he threatens to do. Saying you don't like spam while sticking up for Spamford is like having a "Just Say No" bumper sticker on the car you deal crack out of. It's bullshit!
John Wloch
Just had to add to your burden here.
I've coined the not-very-original phrase "e-rage" for wildly inappropriate online over-reactions. I don't send spam and don't condone it, but I'm truly amazed by how many netizens get so easily outraged. Personally, I get 400-500 e-messages a day and have no trouble at all handling the spam.
Terry Calhoun
In NSD 4.06 ("Miscellaneous London Political Commentary"), you write: "Most political comment in England falls at extreme ends of a spectrum. Left-wing tabloids hurl abuse at Tories and right-wing columnists write pompous, incomprehensible diatribes in the heavy newspapers."
Have any of your writers ever been to Britain? Of the four national daily newspapers of quality (as compared to one, or none, in California, an area of the same size and population), three are opposed to the monarchy, two are emphatically left wing, and only one is emphatically right wing. Of the tabloids, on the other hand, all but one (The Mirror) are definitely right wing. Having had to read both the New York Times and the Washington Post for several months, I can testify that both are far more pompous, and have a far more inflated sense of their own importance, than any British paper. If you're (as you seem to be) the type that gets bored if there's text around the graphs, American papers are far worse: with their cosy local monopolies they can afford to be.
Benedict Evans
In fact, that article was written by our British Netsurfer. - LN
I used to look forward to your cheery presence in my mail box knowing that you'd clue me in to all the latest cool and unusual sites. But what has happened to you lately? Come on now - Hunter O'Reilly's pages? Hats and stuffed animals? Sheesh.
Here's hoping that the quality of the Web hasn't deteriorated to that of television quite yet.
Jane Marta
I am the founder and developer of Gamblers World, which helps out people who get ripped off by the less reputable gaming sites. To date we have recovered over $35,000.00 for people who have written us complaints about not being paid by a service. The best part of this is that we do not charge a dime for what we do.
I personally take offense to two statements in your review (NSD 4.07), the first stating that there's "no suprise" we display ads. It costs a lot of money to keep this site running and I think we are entitled to recoup some of our expenses. Secondly, I take offense to the "Go Fish" comment. I find it hard to believe that NSD would be that narrow-minded to think that this is some kind of hype. I feel that I need to take to defend our honest and creditable reputation of Gamblers World.
Lewis Gruppo
We agree that you should try to sell ads. We do it
ourselves. That's why there's "no surprise" that you have them. No big deal.
We didn't say your site was all hype. If we thought that, it wouldn't have
appeared in NSD, which emphasizes signal, not noise. The "Go Fish" comment
reflects the fact the the world of gambling is wicked and wild - note the
preceding sentence - and not the utility of your site. - LN
I was disappointed that you chose to include Ringling Brothers, Barnum and Bailey in NSD 4.07. That circus uses animals who suffer greatly while being kept in small cages, transported from site to site, and from the noise of the crowds they are supposed to entertain.
Numerous incidents involving elephants going berserk, a tiger killing its trainer, and similar examples show that any circus that uses animals, as Ringling does, is wrong to do so.
How about the Cirque de Soleil? Great show, no animals! Let's not make cruelty to animals a part of Netsurfer Digest, please.
Dave Adams
Great newsletter guys, but I almost sent it to the trash bin when I ran into my second typo in the first few paragraphs of NSD 4.09. I know that you're busy there and I, too, make typos but the spell checkers are really good these days!
Bottom line: good stuff in the newsletter, hope you build a strong readership.
Vincent Wright - East Hartford, Connecticut
I can't claim to be a copy editor, and sometimes I have to add stuff after the copy editor sees it. Mistakes creep in once in a while. - LN
I've enjoyed NSD for over a year but I question the review of "Personal Diary of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" (NSD 4.11), especially the phrase "as objectively as possible".
I went to this site. I was shocked. This site is not at all objective. It is written by somebone who lives and works only with one side of this conflict. His site is hosted by a Palestinian university not known for its "objectivity". Please next time present also the view of an objective Israeli or even a journalist working and living in Israel.
Alain Rosenthal
Your personal opinion in "That Ain't No Face on Mars" (NSD 4.12) does not really qualify as news. Otherwise a fine magazine.
Terry Milner
It's not news, it's a public service announcement. - LN
I have been an avid NSD reader for a number of years now and I have very much enjoyed and used it for both personal and business use. While I somewhat understand your recent desire to switch to just HTML format, I thought I'd mention that this made me unsubscribe.
Carl Flansbaum - Bellingham, Washington
I notice that some people don't like the HTML format that you use. I too like a hard copy to look at. There are a number of HTML to text converters that give me a text file similar to what was put out before. It takes a few extra moments, but you can't beat the information. Besides. after picking out the sites I want to visit, I can use the HTML file to get to those easily.
Kurt Wolfsberg
The beginning text is much too small to read comfortably. The text in the stories is fine. Just thought I'd let you know. Keep up the good work!
Joe Milon - Trenton, Michigan
I like getting NSD in HTML, but the small fonts that you use for the table of contents and the masthead at the end kill my eyes. What's the deal with this? Is it changeable?
Sandy Santra
We set the font of that text as "-1" which means that
your browser will display that text at a font size one less than your
default. Since it's entirely a relative tag that acts on your own chosen
default display font, there's not much we on this end can do to change it.
If you think it's too small, there's two things you can do - you can choose
a larger standard display font or you can choose a font that looks better
at the smaller size. - LN
You've got a great site, but thoses flashing ads are really annoying. I understand you've got to pay the rent and I'm OK with static ones, but please stop the flashing.
Mike Stringer - Boise, Idaho
Please do not clutter your text with invitations to find partners, etc. Put them at the end or somewhere where they can be ignored if necessary.
Roy Morris - Columbia, Missouri
It's not really our choice how the ads look or what they say. - LN
I use Eudora 2.2 (32) and Netscape 4. Eudora has many good features but it can't read HTML directly. To read NSD, I save each issue with an HTM extension and then use Netscape to read it. This is a slow process and a pain in the butt. I would not bother if your articles were not so darned well written and interesting. Kol hakavod as we say in Hebrew. which literally means "all honor to you" and is more or less equivalent to "jolly good show!"
Do you know of any accessory I can add to Eudora to enable me to read your HTML versions directly?
Maurice Ostroff
Todah rabah. I have one bit of advice - upgrade to Eudora 3.X. Eudora 3 (at least Eudora Light 3, which I use on both PC and Mac platforms) handles HTML e-mail better than Eudora 2. It doesn't quite display the full glory of a NSD HTML page, but it does display it clearly in readable form. The links even work. Give it a try. Last I saw, Eudora Light 3 was still free. - LN
Just a quick note to let you know how much I enjoy the new format. It's easy to navigate and thoughtfully laid out.
Jeff Goff
When I download your attached file on AOL I cannot open it. The first alert box I get is "The file is to large for Simpletext". MacLink says it cannot find translators. DataViz Fileview will open the file but it's not a pretty sight. What am I missing here?
Celtjammin
I'm not sure what the AOL problem is, but if your Mac says it's too big for SimpleText, that means that it's interpreting the file as a text file. SimpleText won't handle files bigger than 32 kB. You should open the attachment in another program. Your regular text processor will work and if you're using Apple Data Detectors, the links will be clickable in any text processor. If not, you can drag and drop the links in a drag-and-drop aware browser. If you open the file with your browser, it might even read the file as HTML. - LN
Address your letters to
editor@netsurf.com.
Letters and signatures edited for clarity and brevity.