Stanford Guidelines for Web Credibility

10 comments

Putting my money where my mouth is and at risk of starting another shooting match, this link was on a thread at WMW.
http://credibility.stanford.edu/guidelines/index.html
Some of us do still watch threads

Comments

Ready, aim...

This research took three years, their sources are as old as almost seven years, and the resulting report is simply standard/basics most people would already know...this is worth dragging yourself through the threads for and sharing here?

I'm sorry, but if this is your best example of why we should be more interested in forum threads....I hope TW sticks to trawling through blogs and news sites.

I think that's pretty interesting...

...regardless of the snark competition..

I notice they didnt mention SSL or little thawte buttons.

Wow

Updated June, 2002

So up to date.

This research took three years

Typed only using one finger.

Sorry.......

Sorry Sister Sledge.
Like everyone else here you seem to know everything.
Don't notice so posts or threads started by you though. The Stanford research has actually generated 3 pages of lively comment on WMW by some pretty experienced and respected seo's but I wont bore you further with what people have to say in forums.

I would say that much of

I would say that much of that is good information. Information doesn't have to be new to be true, applicable or relevant.

That's why I come here...

I'm sorry too, cabbagelooking. While I'm certainly not a know-it-all, I just don't come here to learn standards or basics...The main reason I come to TW is to learn what's new/changing and to hear the thoughts of the people who comment here. I value TW for the fact that most of the comments are from people I have come to trust and respect over time. I like it that there isn't any "noise", no newbie questions, and that people feel free to speak frankly.

And you're right...I'm mostly a "lurker". I wish I was able to give back here, but I'm doing my best to just keep up with the times. I balance fulltime website optimization and Internet marketing with being a wife/mom/artist...Even if I had something worthy to say, I can rarely take time to comment, let alone post something original and worthy. I commend you and thank you for having done so in the past.

I did take the time to comment last night to your post, because you're carrying on with a topic covered recently where TW was taken to task for ignoring threads. I'm not saying forums don't bring in some valuable info...and I don't have the time to slog through them to find it. If you find good stuff, by all means bring it over. But please don't task others for using their time to get the best info they can where it's quicker/easier to find.

I've looked again at the report you've pointed out and really can't see anything newsworthy in it and just can't imagine that people could find it interesting enough to run up three pages...but then again, I don't know it all and may be missing something?

Nevermind

Now I feel like noise. I'll refrain from any further comments. My apologies.

*cough*

Cabbage, thank you for this.

Cabbage, thank you for this. I don't have the time to wade through lots of forums. This is an excellent read.

noise and threadjacking

Hmmm.. this is noise:

Quote:
Sorry Sister Sledge. Like everyone else here you seem to know everything. Don't notice so posts or threads started by you though. The Stanford research has actually generated 3 pages of lively comment on WMW by some pretty experienced and respected seo's but I wont bore you further with what people have to say in forums.

and this is noise:

Quote:
Now I feel like noise. I'll refrain from any further comments. My apologies.

and this is incomplete/faulty ThreadJacking™

Quote:
Putting my money where my mouth is and at risk of starting another shooting match, this link was on a thread at WMW. http://credibility.stanford.edu/guidelines/index.html Some of us do still watch threads

The former (noise) is undesireable, but an acceptable consequence of encouraging open communications. The latter (faulty or incomplete ThreadJacking™is unacceptable, unless executed as a ThreadJack™ to ThreadWatch™; it should never attempt to draw traffic away to an unknown destination (as this one did).

Might I suggest a better way to have presented this post:

    Standford University has published Guidelines for Web credibility (link) which is the subject of hot debate over at WMW (no link to WMW, sorry - use their excellent site search to find it). Key complaints include the age of the study (several years in the making; using data as old as 7 years) while others highlight the important of credibility in TheNewGoogle, where something commonly called TrustRank seems to be part of the algo and perhaps even the "sandbox".


Not snarky, not noisy, and not flame bait.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.