Appendix V: Selection criteria of other Internet services

1 Introduction

Nineteen selective Internet services were analysed with regard to the criteria they use to select documents for their database. Twelve of these are general services, four are regional or national services and three are subject specific services.

General services

• Argus Clearinghouse
• WWW Virtual Library
• Cyberhound
• excite NetDirectory
• Galaxy (no information available)
• Infoseek select sites (no information available)
• Lycos / Point Communications, Top 5% reviews
• Lycos / A2Z
• Magellan's Reviews
• NetFirst
• Webcrawler select
• Yahoo (no information available)

National, regional (selection)

• Jubii (Denmark)
• DINO (Germany)
• SUNET (Sweden)
• UK Web Library (UK)

Subject specific

• City.Net
• GeoSurver (no information available)
• Ei Village (no information available)

Argus Clearinghouse

source: <URL:http://www.clearinghouse.net/docs/submit.html> [Accessed: 19 July 1996]

Selection criteria

• resource must be accessible via the Internet
• "Guides must point to other Internet information resources ... which deal with one specific topic (or more than one if they are related to each other)"
• "In order to create some consistency and make things easy for end-users, we are requiring that the following information be displayed prominently within each guide:

1. author's full name
2. author's title and institution/company
3. author's email address
4. brief biography of author (recommended--it's good practice to let users know who you are and why they should trust your perspective)
5. date of last update to guide (older guides eventually will be moved to less prominent locations within the Clearinghouse)
6. version number for guide (recommended)"

• Guides must be free of charge for end users.

Rating criteria

source: <URL:http://www.clearinghouse.net/docs/ratings.html> [Accessed: 19 July 1996]

• "Level of Resource Evaluation: Evaluative information provides users with a subjective sense of the quality of the Internet resources, including:

• Quality of the content of resources (e.g. discussion in mailing lists and Usenet newsgroups, information in a Web site). ...
• Authority (e.g., reliability) of resource authors. "

• "Level of Resource Description: Descriptive information provides users with an objective sense of what the Internet resources cover, including:

• Description of the resources' content (ranging from keywords to abstracts).
• Description of the traffic levels, level of moderation, features (e.g., digests) for mailing lists and Usenet newsgroups.
• Intended audience for the resources.
• Description of the update frequencies for resources
• Access instructions for the resources.
• Technical performance levels of the resources (i.e., a server is frequently down). "

• Guide Organisational Schemes (How are the resources in the Guides organised?)
• "Assessment of the resources' usability (e.g., document layout, readability, appropriate use of graphics, organisation)"
• Meta information

• "Guide Design: Quality guides balance aesthetics with usability:

• Images (are images attractive, do they support ease of navigation, do they load quickly).
• Layout (does the author make appropriate use of headers, mixed font sizes, and white space).
• Navigational aids (it is easy to find your way around, do you have a consistent sense of context or understanding of where you are in the guide at any given time). "

City.Net (excite)

source: <URL:http://www.city.net/cnx/credits.html> (sources for their own searches)

<URL:http://www.city.net/cnx/cnx_faq.html> [Accessed: 19 July 1996]

• city pages (geographic and tourist information, maps etc.)
• (" We add cities when they have been submitted to us or when we find them through our own searches on the Net. ")

Cyberhound

Rating criteria

source: <URL:http://www.thomson.com/cyberhound/ratings.html> [Accessed: 19 July 1996]

comment: They have an overall rating and individual ratings for content, design and technical merit.

• "Has the data been updated recently? "
• "Authoritative/reliable information: Who's providing this information? Do you trust them?"
• "Comprehensiveness: Does the site cover all the facets of a particular topic? Is everything you expect to find in the site there? Are there any logical gaps of information? "
• "Unique or hard-to-find information: Does the site contain information that is not readily available? Would you have to look long and hard to find similar data, or is it a dime a dozen?"
• "Is this a popular topic that people will want to know about?"
• rating for design

DINO

source: <URL:http://www.dino-online.de/dino.html> [Accessed: 19 July 1996]

• sites in German (sites on German, Austrian and Swiss-German servers)
• probably only sites submitted by users

Excite NetDirectory

source: <URL:http://www.excite.com/Handbook/NetReviews/index.html> [Accessed: 19 July 1996]

• "... rather than pointing you at particular Web pages and Usenet articles, NetReviews points you to Web sites and Usenet groups"

Galaxy

source: <URL:http://galaxy.einet.net/about.html> [Accessed: 19 July 1996]

• "Our index includes only those pages actually submitted to us."

Lycos Point Top 5%

source: <URL:http://point.lycos.com/faq/#choose> [Accessed: 19 July 1996]

• "best, smartest, and most entertaining sites"
• "Point's staff of reviewers surfs the Web daily looking for the best, smartest, and most entertaining sites around (We also look at suggestions we receive in our submit box). If we review a page, it means we think it is among the best 5% of all Web sites in content, presentation, and/or experience. Some sites are tops in all three categories; others qualify due to fabulous content or exceptional presentation. And some make it in just because they're so deliciously silly.
• "Point makes no distinction between commercial, private, or student pages. Excellence is our only criterion."

Rating criteria

source: <URL:http://point.lycos.com/faq/#ratings> [Accessed: 19 July 1996]

• "Up-to-date? "
• "Is it accurate?"
• "Just how broad, deep, and amazingly thorough is the information? Are there good links?... Complete?"
• "Does it lead visitors through the information nicely? Does it use video, audio, and original graphics? Does it break new ground?"
• "Experience: This is the key rating. Is this fun? Is it worth the time? Will we recommend it to friends?"
• "Presentation: Is the page beautiful? Colorful? Easy to use?"

Jubii

source: email from "Jakob Faarvang" [Accessed: 18 July 1996]

• language: "The site has to be Danish"
• "If a page is almost empty or without content, we do not accept it."

Lycos / A2Z

source: <URL:http://a2z.lycos.com/faq.html> [Accessed: 19 July 1996]

• "the most linked-to (and therefore the most rewarding) sites on the Net"
• "Is the site sponsored by a company, organization or individual widely recognized as an authority or expert in the category field?
• "Does the site contain valuable information which is not overly duplicated by related sites already existing in the directory?"
• "Does inclusion of the site enhance or complement existing sites in a given category?"
• "Does it contain breakthrough content or design elements?"

Magellan's Reviews

Selection criteria

source: <URL:http://www.mckinley.com/feature.cgi?faq_bd> [Accessed: 19 July 1996]

• "Sites will be selected for review based on the usefulness and entertaining quality of their content,"
• Exclusion of sites relating to pornography, paedophilia, or hate groups

source: email from <temp2@mckinley.com> [Accessed: 22 July 1996]:

• "... if we have a few sites on that subject, then we would look for sites that would expand that area, rather than just repeat what all the other sites have."

Rating criteria

• "Depth: Is it comprehensive and up-to-date?"
• "Ease of Exploration: Is it well-organized and easy to navigate?"
• "Net Appeal: Is it innovative? Does it appeal to the eye or the ear? Is it funny? Is it hot, hip, or cool? Is it thought-provoking? Does it offer new technology or a new way of using technology?"

NetFirst

source: <URL:http://www.oclc.org/oclc/netfirst/faq.htm> [Accessed: 19 July 1996]

Concerning a site:

• "provided there is sufficient information with which to create a descriptive record"

Concerning lower level objects:

• "either proven to be, or expected to be, durable"
• "expected to be of general interest to our users"
• "substantial, where size is a primary determinant"
• " the quality of the data is the primary criterion"

SUNET

source: <URL:http://www.sunet.se/sweden/help-sv.html> [Accessed: 19 July 1996]

• Swedish resources which are of interest to more than one person
• most of the resources submitted by users

UK Web Library

source: <URL:http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/wwlib/misses.html> [Accessed: 19 July 1996]

• negative selection: sites about nudes, bomb making, pornography probably won't be included in the catalogue.

Webcrawler select (GNN select)

source: <URL:http://www.gnn.com/gnn/wic/wics/support/about.rescat.html> [Accessed: 19 July 1996]

• "sites that receive frequent updates"
• "Our aim is to collect the best resources within each of the subject areas covered by the catalog"
• "effectively designed, demonstrate a feel for Web culture"
• "available to users at no cost"

WWW Virtual Library

general source: <URL:http://coombs.anu.edu.au/SpecialProj/QLTY/QltyLinks.html> [Accessed: 29 Nov. 1996]

The WWW Virtual Library Project is a distributed project - the replies below have been split according to the maintainer of the system.

source: T.Matthew Ciolek <tmciolek@coombs.anu.edu.au> (WWW VL System: Aboriginal Studies

Asian Studies, Buddhist Studies, Information Quality, Social Sciences, Tibetan Studies)

Selection criteria

• If there is a lack of information in given area - any online site will do. Later, these links are replaced with ones leading to better & richer sites
• If a site provides factual information (= mere opinions, literature, ideologies etc. are out)
• If a site provides original information (= does nor replicate information available elsewhere)
• If a site provides with their own information are preferred to sites and links to other sites
• If it is a WWW system although gopher or ftp sites are also considered
• If the information is well organised and presented
• If the information is attributable to an author and/or editor. Anonymous, unsigned, unattributed information is not to be trusted.
• If the link is reasonably fast and stable
• If the link is sufficiently focused on an interesting resource, links to general, introductory pages are replaced with links leading directly to the 'heart' & 'marrow'
• If the site is frequently updated, improved and enlarged (in other words, I tend to establish links to electronic equivalents of research papers, books and encyclopaedias - as opposed to mere posters, postcards and poststamps)

source: Nelson C. Baker <nb2@eiffel.ce.gatech.edu> (WWW VL System: Civil Engineering)

Selection criteria:

• I only include other URL's of sites where the maintainer has given me permission to list the site.
• I browse the site to make sure that it is viewable and contains information related to my VL

source: Thomas Hartley <thartley@uconnvm.uconn.edu> (WWW VL System: Political Science)

Selection criteria:

• So far, we have included everyone who requested inclusion.
• When the page becomes too large to proceed in this way, I plan to create (or try to find other people to create) separate but related pages.

source: CyberWeb <web@sowebo.charm.net> (WWW VL System: World-Wide Web Development)

Selection criteria:

• Relevance, Accessibility, and Quality.
• I occasionally get requests to link to flower shops/record stores/etc., which I ignore. They have evidently never even visited my site.
• I visit all sites before linking them. If I can't access them then they won't get linked.
• I add any introductory paragraph to my URLs database so that annotation about the site is available.
• I try not to be too judgmental about site quality if it has something useful to offer; but just once or twice the presentation was too bad.
• I get most sites myself through newsgroup, mailing lists and surfing but I plan on doing less of that as the volume of link requests increases.

source: Jonathan Bowen <Jonathan.Bowen@comlab.oxford.ac.uk> (WWW VL System: Museums, Publishers)

Selection Criteria:

• Whether a proper URL is supplied.
• Whether the URL works!
• Whether the material is relevant.
• How well the material is organised.
• How good the links are to further relevant information.
• How well laid out the pages are.
• How fast the page loading is.
• How considerate and well thought out the use of graphics is.
• Whether I have heard of the organisation previously (This may speed my response if so.)
• Whether I have the time to spare!!

source: <valiant@mordor.com> (WWW VL System: Automotive)

Selection Criteria:

• I use anything that I can find which I have verified as being current and working.
• I would like someday to switch to non-commercial, but in this area, that's probably hard to separate. Maybe I will sooner or later switch to a core view --
• automotive rather than auto accessories.

source: John Lock <jlock@mindspring.com> (WWW VL System: Beer & Brewing)

Selection Criteria:

• I try to only include links to pages that contribute something of substance to the overall topic. I get a lot of requests for listing pages that are nothing more than a
• collection of links to other pages, most of which are already in the library. I prefer links that provide some useful content.
• Commercial or advertising pages are placed in their own category. Related to that, I avoid pages that "appear" to represent a company, but are merely published
• by an individual who likes their product(s).
• I reject all pages that encourage alcohol abuse.
• I don't list pages that represent a conflict of interest. For example, I was recently requested to list a page for a small branch of a larger organisation which does
• not have a WWW presence. The "head office" e-mailed me requesting the branch office page not be listed for two reasons:
  • The head office was in the process of establishing their WWW presence and wanted to have editorial control of branch pages.
  • The branch page did not present the appropriate image that the head office was trying to maintain.

(I e-mailed back stating that I would not list the page until the two parties could come to an agreement)

source: Jesper Weissglas <jesper.weissglas@mikrolit.se> (WWW VL System: Furniture & Interior Design)

Selection criteria:

• I look at the suggested site, and anything that I find matches my subject gets added...
• I have divided the sites into Academic, Commercial and a few others...

source: Thomas Stein <stein@wiz.uni-kassel.de> (WWW VL System: Irrigation)

Selection criteria:

• I try to include all sources of real information (on-line information) excluding pages which just keep information like addresses to write to or so. Unfortunately it is not always possible to stick to that as relatively little irrigation information is available on the net.

Next	Table of Contents

Page maintained by: UKOLN Metadata Group,
Last updated: 2-Apr-1998