Posts Tagged ‘credibility’

The Four (4) Credibility Types – Web Examples (Item 2)

November 3, 2012 Leave a comment

Fogg (2003) has highlighted the four (4) types of credibility that separates some websites credibility from another. The types of credibility are; Presumed Credibility, Reputed Credibility, Surface Credibility and Earned Credibility. I’ll be showing four (4) example websites from the world-wide-web that describe each type of credibility.

– – –

Figure 1: Presumed Website Example (Source: WWF Global, 2012)

The following website example is that of a presumed credibility; ‘WWF Global’ is an organization which helps rescue animals, mainly pandas, from dangerous inhabitants and rescuing them from trafficking operations. They’re not only a globalized organization easily identified thanks to their efforts, but they’re constantly updating their website with information, have an extremely detailed FAQ and information link, and they’re primarily running through donations, which they show results due to the donations from the general public.

– – –

Figure 2: Reputed Website Example. (Source: The Escapist Magazine, 2012)

This website example is that of the reputed credibility type; this website is ‘The Escapist Magazine’ website, which discusses and reviews video-games across all platforms. Although the information may be opinionated, the reason this site has a high credibility is due to the website winning a ‘Webby’ award for the top video-game website. The website also has a strong fan base of people who share opinions, and the reviews of the games are extremely informative and the video-game research is correct; but when it comes down to the writer’s opinion on if he or she enjoys or likes the game is completely opinionated (which could lose credibility if people disagree with their opinion).

– – –

Figure 3: Surface Website Example. (Source: Bank West, 2012)

This website is a prime example of the surface credibility; The website is for ‘Bank West’, a highly professional bank located all around Western Australia. The reason why this website is an example of surface credibility is because it is presented professionally, and the site is easily an organization I recognize, especially through their advertisements on the television. All the informational pages within the website have citations and the website is easy to navigate through, with a simple tab on the right-side of the website to access online banking, and information about the bank is located on the left-side of the web-page.

– – –

Figure 4: Earned Website Example. (Source: Google, 2012)

Finally, we’re left with the final type of credibility, and that is earned credibility. The website example for earned credibility is ‘Google’. Google is a search-engine website, an extremely popular website, quiet possibly the most used website on the world-wide-web. The reason why this website is the perfect example for earned credibility is because it’s extremely easy to navigate the website, the links are quick and responsive when clicked, it gathers large amount of search results in a matter of seconds and the content that is processed is “fair and balanced”.

– – –


Web Credibility – Anticipated Issues (Item 1 / Q3 Summary)

November 3, 2012 Leave a comment

Fogg’s (2003) studies on web credibility from 1999 to 2002 have shown that the general website user has become more self-aware of the content that he/she may be reading or using in their research. Fogg shows a comparison sheet, comparing the trustworthiness elements that increase web credibility. One of the comparisons show that in 1999, the site that lists their organization’s physical address has a +2.0 rating of web credibility. In 2002, it’s been decreased down to +1.7. I’ll explain in dot points some of the reasons why people have become more aware and demanding of web credibility and some anticipated issues we could possibly see in the future in regards to credibility on the world-wide-web.

  • Figure 1: Facebook Logo (Source: Blue Out Pen State, 2012)

    The kids of this generation are being brought up with this type of technology and usability. They’re using mainstream sites like Facebook, Myspace & Twitter. Through these mainstream websites, people can supply links to information. People can ‘like’ links that are sent around the web, so people would misinterpret the popular links with the most likes as the ‘correct’ information, which could very well be completely inaccurate information.

  • The increased amount of articles lurking around the world-wide-web by supposed ‘journalists’ may have some correct information, but some articles are riddled with spelling mistakes and grammar errors, which could possibly indicate that the person’s article may not be completely true.
  • The reason behind the increased sighting of spelling mistakes and grammar errors could be due to the internet surpassing the ‘newspaper’ in delivering news. Every journalist and writer on the world-wide-web are keyboard-ready when it comes to news, so it’s all a matter of being first to deliver information, never-minding if the information is credible or not, and because they want to publish first, won’t scan their article as thoroughly as would professional editors apart of a newspaper or magazine agency.

Credibility Analysis & Wikipedia Queries (Item 1 / Q1&2 Summary)

November 3, 2012 Leave a comment

(Q1) Credibility is a crucial attribute when researching on the world-wide-web. Fogg (2003) describes credibility with a simple scenario example; first (1st) scenario is that you open the door to find cameras, a presenter with a big check claiming “You’ve won our sweepstakes “ The second (2nd) scenario is that you check the mail, and you get a letter claiming “You’ve won our sweepstakes “but they’ve spelled your name wrong and the signature on the bottom is not an original.

Figure 1: The Must-Have Guide To Helping Technophobic Educators (Source: Edudemic, 2012)

These example scenario’s can be applied to your ventures on the web, you must take into account that everyone has access to the world-wide-web, and that anyone can display a website or journal article, but the information could be completely incorrect. The word credibility as defined by Longley-Cook (1962) “was originally introduced into actuarial science as a measure of the credence that the actuary believes should be attached to a particular body of experience […] implying that the experience will will develop in the future may well be very different from that so far collected.”

It is vital to use credibility when researching over the world-wide-web, reasons is because, like described above, everyone has access to the web. The ways of detecting whether the research over the web is reliable is by the amount of reference information, for example; the author, title, date of publication, copyright statement, FAQ and more. Virginian Montecino’s (1998) article on ‘Helpful Hints to Help You Evaluate the Credibility of Web Resources’ states “Anyone, in theory, can publish on the Web; therefore, it is imperative for users of the Web to develop a critical eye to evaluate the credibility of Internet information.” One (1) example the article provides to help identify credibility within the research; “Is there any evidence that the author of the Web information has some authority in the field about which she or he is providing information?”.

– – –

(Q2)“Why can’t we use Wikipedia as a credible resource?”

Figure 2: Wikipedia’s current logo. (Source: Wikipedia, 2012)

Wikipedia is a popular website which stores a large amount of information on pretty much everything. Clark (2007) sites Wikipedia as “An encyclopedia that anyone can edit” which is one of the most accurately sentenced descriptions for Wikipedia. Although the information may be accurate, and well reference at the bottom of the page, anyone can simply enter the page and edit vital bits of information that are completely incorrect. A writer at Learning Economics (2012) who’s a teacher, has expressed his thoughts on students citing Wikipedia as a reference; “When you cite something in your paper, it means that the information or idea you are presenting is not your own […] However, since anyone can edit Wikipedia, it is entirely possible that you created that post in Wikipedia to support your idea or topic.” In conclusion, Wikipedia is a website that should not be cited as a reference source, this statement is said by both expertise on credibility and teachers.

– – –

Clark, D. (2007). What Is Wikipedia, and What Is It Good For?. Retrieved from

Fogg, B. J. (2003). Credibility and the World Wide Web. In Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. (pp. 122-181).

FreeEconHelp. (2012). Learning Economics… Solved!. Why you should never cite Wikipedia in your papers! Tips for using Wikipedia in your research. Retrieved from

Longley-Cook, L. H. (1962). Report. An Introduction to Credibility Theory. (pp. 194-221).

Virginian Montecino. (1998). Helpful Hints to Help You Evaluate the Credibility of Web Resources. Criteria to Evaluate the Credibility of WWW Resources. Retrieved from