museumsandtheweb.com - Comments for "Museums and the Web 2011 (MW2011): Best of the Web: Categories" http://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2011/best/categories Comments for "Museums and the Web 2011 (MW2011): Best of the Web: Categories" en Evaluating BoW nominations http://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2011/best/categories#comment-3842 <p>Hi Sheila,</p> <p>Unfortunately, there are too many nominations in a <a href="/mw2011/best">Best of the Web</a> competition for us to follow-up with each site. So review focuses on what can be seen by a user of the site.</p> <p>The <a title="MW2011 BoW Panel Members" href="/mw2011/best/panel">panel</a> works with a defined set of <a title="see the MW2011 BoW evaluation process" href="/mw2011/best/criteria">Evaluation Criteria</a>, and a set rubric, to review every site nominated. Their discussions focus on the visible evidence of how well a site is meeting the needs of a target community, e.g. for a social media site, are there recent comments, frequent contributions, breadth of participation.</p> <p>/jt</p> Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:22:37 +0000 jtrant comment 3842 at http://www.museumsandtheweb.com Goals-->effectiveness? http://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2011/best/categories#comment-3759 <p>This is a good question to raise, and I wonder if this can be addressed in the nomination process.&nbsp; Tracking web stats wouldn't exactly solve this issues since site traffic can also be as&nbsp; much about publicity and outreach as it is about use and effectiveness.</p> <p>Currently, sites may be nominated by anyone--which is fantastic. Is there a second step where the nominees can provide the stated goals of the web project? I think it can be difficult to assess how effect a site is in any category if the judges don't explicitly understand the purpose of the site. I know there is a general "Why?" text box for description, but that can be penned by someone not affiliated with the project who also might not understand the design and content goals. A site might be effective because of the content it makes available to a specific community that has been underserved, or a social network that might look terrible to our eyes but is proving to be very effective for the group it targets and serves. Just some thoughts here, but a goals/objective statement can also assist in the difficult task of comparing sites produced by different types of museums serving many different audiences.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:37:01 +0000 sbrennan comment 3759 at http://www.museumsandtheweb.com Best of the Web Evaluation Criteria http://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2011/best/categories#comment-3758 <p>Hi Hester!</p> <p>Thanks for your comment (also made on our LinkedIn group and answered in both places).</p> <p>Have you seen the 'evaluation criteria' that the Best of the Web Panel uses? They're online at <a href="http://conference.archimuse.com/mw2011/best/criteria" title="http://conference.archimuse.com/mw2011/best/criteria">http://conference.archimuse.com/mw2011/best/criteria</a> and are also open for comment.&nbsp;</p> <p>The criteria are used in conjunction with the category definitions when sites are reviewed. One of the biggest challenges in anonymous / unaided reviewing [no-one knows when the panel member will look at a site] is that there are some things that you can't see – like site usage statistics. There's no way for the panel to know that kind of thing, and no real way to ask people to submit comparable information – particularly since we encourage people to nominate sites other than their own.</p> <p>But there are other ways to see if a site is effective: for example if it's a community, is there participation? If it's a social media site, how many people contribute?</p> <p>How else other than traffic, would you assess a site's effectiveness?</p> Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:10:25 +0000 jtrant comment 3758 at http://www.museumsandtheweb.com