Table of Contents
The useful idea of comparing resources is to select them in the way that we could stress differences. These differences will allow us to apply a more critical point of view the different criteria in the comparison of the resources. In addition, it will help understanding the scope of application of each criteria in a more general approach. Finally, due to the boundary conditions for the extension of the report, two resources will be chosen.
The chosen resources are a web site oriented to obtain a profit in the Internet commerce (Monster, 2010), and a site which uses internet as medium to help people without a target for profit (Ontario, 2009).
Both resources will be compared for each criteria evaluation (NAIT, 2009) following divers guidelines (Cox & Gordon, 2000).
The information about last update is in the web page; additionally we can see the issued date in different articles. Some available documents include the date of copyright and publication. The information in (Ontario, 2009) is relatively updated, while the information in (Monster, 2010) has a current update.
The information in (Monster, 2010) is laid out clearly and logically with well-organized subsections. The site is break down in different categories and examples for different professions. It is easy to navigate and it includes on the top a path that it allows to move back easily. The site uses graphs without to abuse of them; they allow helping in the understanding of the topics. The external and internal links work very well. The writing style is very good and helps to understand the article and intend the audience. It has information but without to fall in extensive articles.
The information in (Ontario, 2009) is laid out clearly with well-organized, but poor, sections. The site is break down in different topics with many external links. It is easy to navigate and it does not include any tool to move back easily. The site does not use graphs. The external and internal links work very well. The writing style is very simple and helps to understand the article and intend the audience.
Some articles in (Monster, 2010) have a clear identification of the author affiliation. Others contain information about the organization that provides the article. The information in this resource has different level of public as target; this characteristic does that some resources are not enough rigorous. The sponsor for the different articles is clear and the resource allows taking contact with the authors in most of the articles. In addition, it includes a room for discussions.
Some articles in (Ontario, 2009) have not a clear identification of the author affiliation. The own articles are issued by the same organization. The resource has a generic link to take contact with the responsible for any questions, in a very general approach.
The information in (Monster, 2010) is grouped in topics, with a brief summary and a rate for each article which allow to quickly understanding the relevance of each article according to the readers. The information looks reliable and correct based on what other sources of the information state. In general, the articles do not include references to other articles or different sources. The information given by the author does not try to be balance, but the context in what the articles are developed does not allow to do it.
The information in (Ontario, 2009) is grouped in topics. The information looks reliable and correct based on what other sources of the information states. The articles do not include references to other articles or different sources. The information given by the author does not try to be balance, but the context in what the articles are developed does not allow to do it.
Both resources have as goal to provide advice and resources helping people to increase the chances of finding a job. The audience is easily identifiable in both resources. Their provide information in how to better build the presentation documents and how to conduct in the research of a job and meetings. The information is biased in the context that it tries to help and advise people, the resources are not trying to compare or to give a neutral position. The resources are trying to give information to one side of the problem, the job seeker. If the resources would give information to both sides, job seeker and recruitment people, it could be less biased.
Web resources present many differences in many criteria that they could be evaluated. It is very important to understand and to proceed with the evaluating of the source of information according to the purpose in the use of this information.
In this case, we have applied the CRAAP evaluation criteria to better understand the differences in the analysed resources. These criteria show that the resource (Monster, 2010) represent a better source of information than the resource (Ontario, 2009) for the level of information required for the author of this report, at the time that the report is written.
Cox, C., & Gordon, G. (2000, January 9). University of Alberta. Retrieved June 14, 2010, from Evaluating Web Resources Checklist: http://www.library.ualberta.ca/instruction/science/evalweb.pdf
Monster. (2010). Monster. Retrieved June 14, 2010, from Resume Writing Tips: http://career-advice.monster.ca/resumes-cover-letters/careers.aspx
NAIT. (2009, November). NAIT. Retrieved June 14, 2010, from Library Research Tips: http://www.nait.ca/libresources/res_tips/craap_eval.pdf
Ontario, Q. P. (2009, November 30). Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. Retrieved June 14, 2010, from Ontario: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/career/resume.html