Websites review and reflection

Websites Review and Reflection
Name
Institution Affiliation
Websites Review and Reflection
I ranked each website differently based on a given set of factors. Such aspects included accessibility, reputability, and purpose of the source, type of information and author, contact links, references, the relevance of information and so forth. Websites from group 1 both had high scores since they possessed many positive elements. In particular, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) website scored highly as it is a government source, which proves that it is reputable. Besides that, the CDC site received a high score since its main aim is to spread information, and that it has some contact links, avoids opinions and provides a wide range of essential topics CITATION CDC18 l 1033 (CDC, 2018). Similarly, the Kids Health website scored highly as its source is a professional organization with a primary aim to inform the public of health issues. Moreover, this site had a high score as it provides balanced information, and has dates on its pages, as well as active links (KidsHealth, 2018). However, I did not recognize the source and could not identify the author of some of its articles, and this might have lowered its score.
On the other hand, websites from group 2 had lower scores than those from group 1 due to various reasons. The WebMD site scored low as it requires a visitor to subscribe so as to receive updates, relies on an unrecognizable source and contains data that is not peer-reviewed.

Nevertheless, this site has some seals of approval and a wide range of content that is helpful to the reader (WebMD, 2018). The Everyday Health website also received low scores since it has no contact details, supports opinions and testimonials, and that some of its research is outdated. Despite this, the Everyday Health site did not score that low since a majority of its authors are either health care professionals or ordinary individuals who refer to health experts (EverydayHealth, 2018).
Although group 1 and 2 websites had different ranks, these sites have some similarities. Group 1 and group 2 websites both have reputable authors. These authors are either health professionals or individuals are under the guidance of health experts. Secondly, these two groups of websites are user friendly. In other words, visitors to these sites can easily navigate them. The visuals of both groups of websites are also appealing to the reader. On the other hand, these websites are different from each other in a variety of ways. Group 1 sites are unique from group 2 since their sources are reputable and recognizable. Furthermore, group 1 websites lack advertisements, which are present in group 2 sites. These similarities and differences are crucial to an online user as they can help them choose the most useful site to visit. For example, by considering how group 1 websites differ from group 2 sites, a user can decide which website meets their needs. If the user is a researcher, he or she can choose group 1 sites to gather necessary information. On the contrary, if the user is an ordinary visitor, he or she can either select group 1 or group 2 websites for informational purposes.
Finally, the evaluation scorecard is useful since it enables a user to assess the authenticity and value of information in websites. This scorecard allows one to distinguish between reputable and non-reputable sources. Further, this scorecard is useful as it helps determine whether information is timely, accurate and objective.

References
CDC. (2018). Retrieved from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: https://www.cdc.gov/
EverydayHealth. (2018). Retrieved from EverydayHealth: https://www.everydayhealth.com/
KidsHealth. (2018). Retrieved from KidsHealth: http://kidshealth.org/
WebMD. (2018). Retrieved from WebMD: https://www.webmd.com/default.htm