# Web Search and Evaluation

## Google Search

### Question 1
I searched up "Northeastern University" site:wikipedia.org and found 12,000 results. The URL is: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Northeastern+University%22+site%3Awikipedia.org&rlz=1C5CHFA_enAU807AU807&oq=%22Northeastern+University%22+site%3Awikipedia.org&aqs=chrome..69i57.373j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

### Question 2
I searched up in the advance search:
I wanted to make sure "ice" or "rink" could still be mentioned, but not the specific phrase "ice rink".

### Question 3
To find web pages about Northeastern Huskies from January 1, 2001 - December 31, 2002, on Google, search up "the Northeastern Huskies" and refine the search by picking the custom dates given (the first day of 2001 through the last day of 2002).

### Question 4
I did an advanced search image of the specific phrase "penguin pair" and made sure to enable the dropdown option of "Creative commons licences" under usage rights.

## Web Credibility
"How do airplanes fly?"
That is the first question that popped into my mind when I decided to search for a website that was less credible vs more credible. It was pretty easy to discern the easily reliable and credible websites from the less-credible ones. The websites with the highest SEO were credible; for example, at the end of the links they had tags like ".gov" and ".org", or were specific organizations like NASA or well known and trusted scientific companies. To find less-credible website, I decided to try looking several pages beyond the initial page. I clicked on a blog titled "Infographic: How do airplanes fly?" Immediately, I questioned the credibility of this site.

First, I looked at the publication, which is listed as "eDreams". I have never heard of eDreams, and after looking at the homepage, I realized that it is a booking site for flights and hotels. The site itself is not academic, peer-reviewed, or scientifically relevant in any way. That was the first red flag.

The second red flag was when I looked at the author. The author of the article is simply listed as "Ina". No last name was visible, and the picture of the author is unprofessional; she has a bird sitting on her shoulder and she looks rather desheveled. Why should I believe her credibility to write an article on a subject that is so scientifically involved?

I also looked at the link itself, and in the link, is the word "blog". Blogs can be a great way to get information or opinions on certain subjects, however, I think trusting a blog for medical, scientific, or political information is a mistake. There is no way that the information can be checked for relevant, correct information, and for this reason, people should be wary when relying on blogs as a single credible source.

Additionally, according to the Berkely Library, it is important to inspect the date of publication and the documentation listed in the source. The source I chose to look at was written in May of 2012. This information is important to consider because as technology (like airplanes) evolve, information on them also evolve. If I wanted the most recent information on how airplanes fly, this would definitely be a source I should avoid. Also, the author, "Ina", supposedly explains how airplanes fly but she does not cite where she got any of her information from. This is a red flag, because although she may just be verbatim explaining information from a credible source, she may just as easily be explaining information she found from a non-credible source.

Overall, this blog does not seem reliable or credible to me and I would figure out how airplanes fly from a different source.

## Wikipedia Evaluation

### Question 1
The first claim is that Professor Reagle "was a longtime member of the World Wide Web Consortium". To verify that this information is true, I went to the references on this Wikipedia Page and was taken to a page that listed the many projects and presentations that he undertook during his time working as a member of the W3C. Importantly, while still allowing people to see his relevant experience with the W3C, he states at the top that he no longer works at the W3C, and offers viewers a way to look at his latest work. This added reference is a very important addition to his Wikipedia page because it allows people to verify that the claim is reliable.

The second claim is that his book "Good Faith Collaboration" is "bestselling". If the page writer claims that his book is bestselling, they should reference where the book was bestselling. After doing additional research into the book, it does look like it was highly praised by many people, however, I could not find any specific place to prove that it was bestselling. If it is bestselling, a reference would be helpful so that the reader can verify the validity of this claim.

### Question 2
According to the history page, this page was created August 1, 2011.