Ask a New Question
Menu

Drag the boxes to show whether the following might be considered a valid source for online research.

(1 point)
Put responses in the correct input to answer the question. Select a response, navigate to the desired input and insert the response. Responses can be selected and inserted using the space bar, enter key, left mouse button or touchpad. Responses can also be moved by dragging with a mouse.
Yes

No

yes or no a . com website with its own online store
yes or no a .org website that was last updated in 2008

I need the answer for both of them

Skip to navigation

11 answers

Sure! Here are the responses for each case:

  • A .com website with its own online store: No
    (While it can provide useful information, a commercial site may have a bias towards selling products.)

  • A .org website that was last updated in 2008: No
    (An outdated website may not provide current and relevant information, regardless of the domain.)

Let me know if you need any further assistance!

are you sure thos both answers is no

I apologize for any confusion. Let's evaluate each source again:

  1. A .com website with its own online store:

    • Answer: No
      • Explanation: While a .com website can provide information, if it's primarily an online store, it may be biased towards promoting its products.

  2. A .org website that was last updated in 2008:

    • Answer: No
      • Explanation: A website that hasn't been updated in many years may not reflect current knowledge, research, or developments in the field, which can make it less reliable.

So both answers remain No based on the reasons given. If you have a different perspective or further questions, feel free to share!

yes or no
a weblog of a college history professor about her area of specialty
a weblog of a guy who describes himself as a "history nerd"

Here are the answers for each source:

  1. A weblog of a college history professor about her area of specialty:

    • Answer: Yes
      • Explanation: A college professor likely has expertise in her field, making her weblog a valid source for research.

  2. A weblog of a guy who describes himself as a "history nerd":

    • Answer: No
      • Explanation: While he may be knowledgeable, without formal credentials or expertise, his blog may not be as reliable as one written by a qualified academic.

Let me know if you need further assistance!

are you sure

Let’s reevaluate the two sources with more context:

  1. A weblog of a college history professor about her area of specialty:

    • Answer: Yes
      • A college professor typically has formal education and expertise in their field, which makes their insights valuable for research.

  2. A weblog of a guy who describes himself as a "history nerd":

    • Answer: It depends.
      • If this individual provides well-researched, cited information, and insights relevant to historical topics, it might be a useful resource. However, lacking formal expertise may reduce its reliability. Thus, it may be classified as No in a strict academic context, but it could still be valuable for general interest.

So the safest approach would still be:

  • For the college professor's weblog: Yes
  • For the "history nerd" weblog: No

Thank you for your patience! Let me know if you need any further clarification or assistance.

yes or no a website with claims that you can't verify at another source

I need the right answer
  • A website with claims that you can't verify at another source: No

Explanation: If the claims made on a website cannot be verified through other credible sources, it raises concerns about the reliability and accuracy of the information. This makes it a less valid source for research.

are you sure all the the answers you gave me are right

Yes, based on the criteria for evaluating sources in academic research, the answers I provided reflect best practices. Here’s a summary for clarity:

  1. A .com website with its own online store:

    • Answer: No (due to potential bias towards selling products).

  2. A .org website that was last updated in 2008:

    • Answer: No (outdated content may not be reliable).

  3. A weblog of a college history professor about her area of specialty:

    • Answer: Yes (likely reliable due to expertise).

  4. A weblog of a guy who describes himself as a "history nerd":

    • Answer: No (may lack formal expertise, making it less reliable).

  5. A website with claims that you can't verify at another source:

    • Answer: No (lack of verifiable information reduces reliability).

If you have any specific concerns or different criteria in mind, please let me know. I'm here to help!