Internet Critique Essay

Internet is an incredible and enormous get-go of reading and, thereby, information waited on Internet must be prised for credibility to effectively serve the variety of users. This paper provides a critique of the website Healthline, harmonise to the criteria of Thede and Sewell (2010). Healthline is one of the popular website among Internet users, that offers users to look for health topic and medical checkup advise online (http//www.healthline.com). The users endure find different treatment options available for a diagnosis as well as information slightly the drugs. It overly allows the users to search for a specialist depending on their residential bea. The criteria illustrated by Thede and Sewell (2010) is of import in guiding users to differentiate between reliable and unreliable information. By using this criteria users become knowledgeable about evaluating the credibility of a website.The questions be in the checklist prompt critical thinking process, and leads u s to find the implicit in(p) intent of the website. The criteria assist users to check the validity of information by finding if the information is peer-reviewed or verified by qualified editor. Only if the fix health information were from a valid scholarly source whence it would be trusted. If the users intent is to valiappointment the information then(prenominal) this criteria should be applied to both another(prenominal) website regardless of the on a lower floorlying intent. For instance, mercenary websites sole intent is to sale their products. The Internet users now can search on the web for other websites that offer peer reviews on that product.SourceHealthline runs by a keep company Healthline Networks Inc. Originally founded in 1999 simply re-launched in 2005 with current predict. Detailed description is given about the companys motto, add-in of directors and management team in company-info section. A search for a specific disease results in a choice to go to d ifferent websites or choose the denominations that ar listed. If the column team does the term then no motive expose is specified, only its reviewed by a qualified MD with or without their credentials specified. But if the article is from an encyclopedia or another publisher, there is only author name is given with their affiliation and articles published date but no authors credentials. The digest review date of an article is shown at the bottom of the page. The publisher name is shown as well with the copyright information. If author name is displayed, there is no connecter to contact the author. The pertain is available if the article is licensed from another publisher. at that place is no link available to contact the article reviewer.FundingHealthline is found to be a commercial site, generating its revenue mainly from the advertisement. Its a free website for users. The family line page is attractive and shows the advertisement at top and bottom of the page. Ther e is too video advertisement with no audio, resulting in less distraction. The advertisements atomic number 18 understandably labeled and dont spoil the user experience, because making the navigation easier.Validity and QualityThe home page of Healthline shows the accessed date on top of the page and copyright information at the bottom. The determination reviewed date is displayed at the bottom of each individual article. New articles are shown at the home page with the name of the editorial team piece on top. But if user is looking for approximatelything specific then nigh of the articles searched are al close two years old. User has to thoroughly search for up to date information. There are appeared to be no cognitive subject matter and typing errors. Information appears to be non-bias. The language used is comprehensible to a general user and lacks the jargon terms. If user navigates to the company info, the purpose of the website is clearly stated.some(a) of the article s are written by the editorial team and reviewed by an MD with published date but no credentials, while other articles are sourced from a third party publisher with some cerebrate functioning. The website claims that articles that are done by Healthline editorial teams are reviewed by the board of certified physicians and medical editors. Detailed information about Healthline medical consultive board and their editorial team is also available on the website, including the name of each member with brief summary of their credentials. Healthline acknowledges licensing the medical and health content from third parties for publication, with clear depiction of their name and a valid link. Some of their third party publisher reference partner include A.D.A.M., GALE Cengage Learning, metallic Standard, NBC Universal, StayWell, Harvard Health Publications, Reed Elsevier and more.PrivacyHealthline silence policy is well outline in the company-info section. They clearly state what informa tion they are collecting from users and with whom they allot this information with. They gave a expanded overview of what type of unidentified information they are collecting. Anonymous information includes the type of queries done on the website by a user, but doesnt include any personal information much(prenominal) as, name email-address or phone number. User can choose not to pass-on this anonymous information by disabling the cookies.Healthline pledges not to share any personal information of registered users to the third parties. In comparison to the recognized seclusion policy statement of HON (Health on The Net Foundation, 2011) website, the personal information self-contained is also not shared with any third party. However, HON also gathers non-personal information using their web-server. HONs privacy statement is short and lacks the details about the non-personal information. On the other hand, Healthline company-info section not only clarifies in detail to the users what are the Cookies and Web Beacons, but also specifies the privacy policy for the children under thirteen.SummaryTo summarize, the criteria by Thede and Sewell helps user develop a sense to evaluate the sources and credibility of information, based on authors qualifications and credentials, source of publication, websites purpose, and websites privacy policy. All of the criteria are found to be of most importance in helping user to evaluate a website for credibility, oddly if user is searching information about their health. The healthline doesnt meet some of those criteria. The criterion of source is not met because of the lack of consistency in providing authors name and credentials. Healthline postulate to develop a consistency in displaying authors name, credentials, affiliation, link to contact the author, articles last reviewed date, and link to contact the article reviewer.The validity and quality criterion is also partially met. The third party publishers validity is c onfirmable in some case where links are functioning. Healthline needs to specialise credentials of the article reviewers as well as the name of their editorial teams member who wrote the article. Also the health information needs to be up to date. Healthline meets the criteria of funding and privacy policy. It clearly expresses its purpose, and acknowledges generating revenues form advertisement. Its privacy policy gives user a detailed view about the anonymous and personal information and how it is used, gaining users trust.