Website Effectiveness

To solve the problems I listed in my last blog post, I decided to put the counterargument scattered throughout my paper. There was one paragraph dedicated to the counterargument, but I put the rest in one-liners in almost each paragraph. I feel like it did the job best.

Ineffective vs. Effective

Ineffective:



"ALIEN SPACESHIPS TO ATTACK EARTH IN NOVEMBER 2012!"

http://weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/26535/alien-spaceships-to-attack-earth-in-2011/

It says "the world's only reliable news" and this doesn't give them any credibility because there are other sources of reliable news. The topic also isn't believable. 

"Spaceships--My Passion"

http://artships.com/

The design is very poor and even though we haven't learned about it, it looks like a ten year old made this. It just sported spaceships and didn't give any real information.

"Latest-UFO-Sightings"

http://www.latest-ufo-sightings.net/

The content and the reasoning for the content were ineffective to me. 

"Universal Uclick"

http://www.universaluclick.com/comics/peanuts/

I just didn't think that it effectively spoke to me personally because it wasn't a topic I was interested in. I enjoy old time comics but the website wasn't appealing enough.

Effective:

"DSW"

http://www.dsw.com/?cm_mmc=google-_-Brand%20DSW%20Only_E-_-DSW%20Only-_-13446485

I love shoes and I think how they set up the website is appealing and I know they guarantee good business.

EPA Water News

http://water.epa.gov/

When researching water, I trust this site to give me accurate information because it has a .gov and the information is given by the EPA, whom I also trust. 

"CNN"

http://www.cnn.com/

I feel like this is a creditable source. Obviously there will be some discrepancy among stories but for the  most part, it is effective. 

"Happy-Dictionary.com"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/happy

I think dictionary.com is effective because it is able to give you the information you need and is simple and easy to work.