Love them or hate them, first impressions are meaningful. The same can be true for first impressions of websites. Some sites, WebMD, for example, are laid out similar to news websites, with headlines and eye-catching images. They are busy, yet not overwhelming, making them user-friendly and simple to follow. The Mayo Clinic’s website is similar to WebMD in that it is organized, although it has a different “feel”. The Mayo Clinic’s site is professional looking. Some first impressions aren’t good, for example, my first impression of the Educate Yourself website. It is extremely overwhelming, unorganized, and difficult to follow. On first glance, I would say that the Mayo Clinic’s website would be the one I would turn to for medical advice.
…show more content…
The authors’ credentials, expertise, and biases. Out of the three websites that I analyzed, WebMD did the best job in this section. On the article page, the author’s name is linked to a biography. The biography states the author's credits “including writing for Los Angeles Times, Shape, Natural Health, Westways, Weight Watchers Magazine, Prevention magazine, Consumers Digest” (Kathleen Doheny Biography). It also states her specialties in the medical field. The domain for WebMD is commercial, or “.com”. I’ve always learned that “.com” websites were less reputable than “.org” or “.gov” but in the case of these three, I think that “.com” was the best because it gave more information about the author. The next best website for authority is the Mayo Clinic. The Mayo Clinic shows other articles written by the same author, so you can see that she knows a lot about the topic. However, they don’t list the author’s credentials or contact information like WebMD did. The least authoritative website was Educate Yourself. They didn’t list the author's name at all. The only name listed is the editor, and while there is contact information, he writes an angry paragraph about not contacting him with technical issues or things he can’t …show more content…
The articles I analyzed for WebMD and the Mayo Clinic were posted in 2017. Educate yourself had information that is current and up to date, the articles I analyzed were posted 2005, 2006, and 2012. I wouldn’t say the information is outdated, however, it isn’t as recent as the other sources. None of the links were outdated except for the link I had trouble with on the Mayo Clinic website.
Review of Information WebMD has the most reliable review board, along with a link to a biography about the woman who reviewed the article. She is a medical editor with an MD MPH degree. Educate Yourself also listed an editor but didn’t give any background information about him or his credentials. The Mayo Clinic didn’t state an editor or review board.
Format and Presentation
The most professionally formatted website was the Mayo Clinic. Both the Mayo Clinic and WebMD’s websites are properly organized and simple to follow. They are busy with high-quality images and headlines, yet not overwhelming since they are organized. Searching information is effortless due to their personal search engine on sites. Educate Your self’s format was not user-friendly at all. Specific information is difficult to find and topics not divided up. Links are scarce and there are no images at all. There is no search engine on the website. The website is unorganized, difficult to follow, and confusing. I don’t see any pros to using this
The authors’ credentials, expertise, and biases. Out of the three websites that I analyzed, WebMD did the best job in this section. On the article page, the author’s name is linked to a biography. The biography states the author's credits “including writing for Los Angeles Times, Shape, Natural Health, Westways, Weight Watchers Magazine, Prevention magazine, Consumers Digest” (Kathleen Doheny Biography). It also states her specialties in the medical field. The domain for WebMD is commercial, or “.com”. I’ve always learned that “.com” websites were less reputable than “.org” or “.gov” but in the case of these three, I think that “.com” was the best because it gave more information about the author. The next best website for authority is the Mayo Clinic. The Mayo Clinic shows other articles written by the same author, so you can see that she knows a lot about the topic. However, they don’t list the author’s credentials or contact information like WebMD did. The least authoritative website was Educate Yourself. They didn’t list the author's name at all. The only name listed is the editor, and while there is contact information, he writes an angry paragraph about not contacting him with technical issues or things he can’t …show more content…
The articles I analyzed for WebMD and the Mayo Clinic were posted in 2017. Educate yourself had information that is current and up to date, the articles I analyzed were posted 2005, 2006, and 2012. I wouldn’t say the information is outdated, however, it isn’t as recent as the other sources. None of the links were outdated except for the link I had trouble with on the Mayo Clinic website.
Review of Information WebMD has the most reliable review board, along with a link to a biography about the woman who reviewed the article. She is a medical editor with an MD MPH degree. Educate Yourself also listed an editor but didn’t give any background information about him or his credentials. The Mayo Clinic didn’t state an editor or review board.
Format and Presentation
The most professionally formatted website was the Mayo Clinic. Both the Mayo Clinic and WebMD’s websites are properly organized and simple to follow. They are busy with high-quality images and headlines, yet not overwhelming since they are organized. Searching information is effortless due to their personal search engine on sites. Educate Your self’s format was not user-friendly at all. Specific information is difficult to find and topics not divided up. Links are scarce and there are no images at all. There is no search engine on the website. The website is unorganized, difficult to follow, and confusing. I don’t see any pros to using this