Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 License.

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

credibility signals

From Ronald Rice's posting at Spotlight on Digital Media and Learning

In what ways do digital technologies themselves affect credibility? I think the essential consequence is of increasing the diversity of credibility signals (both positive and negative, clarifying and obscuring). And at two levels--that of credibility of the content (whether a posting or about a person) and the credibility of the medium itself.

Online links/citations, background searchers, web of science, google scholar, recommender system, automatic sorting by date of posting, blog tags, social networking systems, and more, all offer both features and indicators about credibility of content and people.

I found some simple signals recently. As I retold the story to my youngest daughter, Carolyn, she said. Well what if those sitting at the table move the shakers themselves? She speaks from experience. There are several times when waiting a restaurant, one can fiddle with what ever is on the table to pass the time. I suspect that if the folks seated at the table are playing with the shakers, the wait staff would notice as they approached and revert to Plan B (needing to ask as their clue is now no longer reliable).
Back to credibility...
What helps you determine the credibility of a source?
Recall the content in context that Tom Asacker mentions in his book A Clear Eye for Branding?
Are some bloggers more credibile than others?
What do they do (or not do) that helps you make the decision to trust what they say?
Technorati Tags : , , ,
Powered By Qumana

Comments on "credibility signals"


post a comment