Site 1 Boilerplate Project (RANK: 1)
Strengths: covers the content comprehensively and accurately. very up to date in terms of events and book releases (current). it was more or less user friendly, lots of links.
Weaknesses: too commercial and glorified, somewhat biased in the presentation. clutter in the format. not very clear visuals for the links and navigation.

Site 2 Smoking of all Sides. (RANK: 5)
Strengths: some of the information was legit. offered a variety of views to smoking, extremely simple
biased (dont somke!), shady links (not current, taken down, couldnt be found, random and inappropriate links). It wasn't clearly labeled, not very personal (just a bunch of links on a page and no web payout, aesthetically not pleasing -- clutter)

Site 3 Di-hydrogen Monoxide (RANK: 3)
Strengths: the links were well chosen and very informing. provided alert systems to keep viewers up to date. layout was clean and easy to navigate and consistent throughout. FAQ plus!
not directed for everyday audience (more specific and knowledgeable in the field). some biased - to promote research for DHMO and against DHMO.

Site 4 Dino-Buzz. (RANK: 4)
Strengths: informing of the topic. very user friendly and straight forward (at the bottom of page, always had a homepage button or navigation aid). good balance of facts v. opinions (Jurassic park) layout of the page was good bc it was simple and had a good combo of illustrations and words. links were easy to spot
Weaknesses: obscured writing (not to the point - intro), some of the links didnt work

Site 5 Art of Jacopo di Poggibonsi (RANK: 2)
Strengths: user friendly language, organization of the website was very clear and easy to navigate around, really informing and very factual. timeline was really helpful, good balance between pictures and words
Weaknesses: couldnt find how current or up to date the info was, a couple of the links were switched (bio and vasari's life was switched?) could use some cleaning up and better labeling. labeling of the tabs and links made it a bit confusing as of what we were reading.

*our group thought content was the most important factor in a webpage and ranked our sites according to that. (if you were looking to research on a position for an argument, you would look for biased websites) and most of the time, credibility is not really the top priority.

-Kellye, Vivian, Sandra