HEALTH Web SiteS: CREDIBILITY RESULTS

This section presents what we learned about the credibility of health Web Sites, starting with our results about how the credibility comments for health sites differed from the overall averages, and then presenting the final credibility rankings of the 10 health sites.

Credibility comments about health Web Sites: What stands out?

When it comes to health Web Sites, the data in our study show that this category stands out in four ways. First, when evaluating the credibility of health sites, people commented much more often on issues of information focus (33.0% vs. 25.1% overall) and information usefulness (20.5% vs. 14.8%). Looking more deeply at the data (not presented in this study), we find that these additional comments tended to be positive. In other words, there are a substantial number of comments saying that health Web Sites won credibility by providing information that people found to be useful and to have a good focus. The data also show that people commented more often about advertising on health Web Sites, compared to people who evaluated sites in other categories (21.3% vs. 13.8%). But customer service on health Web Sites was rarely mentioned (0.4% vs. 6.4%).

When viewed as a whole, the data suggest that people evaluating the credibility of health Web Sites pay relatively more attention to the focus and usefulness of the information. What people find in these areas apparently becomes a significant indicator of the Web Site Credibility.

Credibility rankings of health Web Sites

Table 5 shows the final ranking of health sites in this study.

Table 5: Ranking and scores for health Web Sites.

What's notable about health site rankings?

In the current study, three Web Sites cluster at the top of the Web credibility rankings: MayoClinic.com, Intelihealth, and NIH — all highly credible sites. While there may be no practical difference in credibility among these three top health sites, the sites in this top cluster are clearly viewed as more credible by our participants than the other seven sites in our study. These three sites lead the rest of the Web Sites by a significant margin.

On the other end of the credibility spectrum, four Web Sites cluster at the bottom. However, what's more notable is how a third cluster of high-profile dot-com Web Sites — MDChoice, Dr. Koop, and WebMD — landed squarely in the middle of the rankings, viewed as neither high nor low in credibility compared to the other sites in the study. From a credibility standpoint, the approach these three companies have taken is not working as well as the approach by Intelihealth.

NEWS Web SiteS: CREDIBILITY RESULTS

This section presents what we learned about the credibility of news Web Sites, starting with our results about how the credibility comments for news sites differed from the overall averages, and then presenting the final credibility rankings of the 10 news sites.

Credibility comments about news Web Sites: What stands out?

News is a Web Site category that differed from the overall averages in many areas, suggesting that people evaluate the credibility of news sites quite differently than other types of sites. The data show that issues relating to information received relatively more attention when people evaluated sites in the news category, compared to the overall averages: information focus (31.9% vs. 25.1% overall), information accuracy (21.7% vs. 14.3%), and — most dramatic of all — information bias (30.2% vs. 11.6%). Other areas that figured more prominently in people's comments about news sites were issues relating to name recognition and reputation (19.1% vs. 14.1%) and writing tone (14.8% vs. 9.0%). Some areas received relatively less attention when people evaluated the credibility of news Web Sites. Design look was mentioned less often (39.6% vs. 46.1%), and issues relating to customer service were rarely mentioned (0.8% vs. 6.4%). Interestingly enough, compared to the overall averages, news Web Sites received far fewer comments about underlying company motive (5.9% vs. 15.5%) and fewer comments that conveyed general suspicion (4.3% vs. 9.4%).

Viewed as a whole, the credibility picture for news sites is intriguing — and perhaps contradictory. On one hand people evaluating news sites seem quite tuned in to issues of information bias. On the other hand, people tended not to comment on issues relating to underlying company motive, an area that would seem to be related to information bias. Perhaps in evaluating the credibility of these sites, people could have easily commented on information bias but found it harder to pinpoint or articulate the motives behind the information, leading to fewer comments of this type.

Credibility rankings of news Web Sites

Table 6 shows the final ranking of news sites in this study.

Table 6: Ranking and scores for news Web Sites.

What's notable about news site rankings?

In the news sites credibility rankings, three sites scored much higher than the rest: The New York Times on the Web, Yahoo! News, and CNN. The surprise here is Yahoo! News. In our opinion, people often consider The New York Times to be a leader in print news and CNN a leader in TV news. But Yahoo! is neither based in print nor on TV, and it's not primarily a news organization. For these reasons and more, it's remarkable how well Yahoo! scored, probably winning credibility points because of the strength of its online brand and the diversity of its news site offerings.

For our research team, another intriguing result is how poorly MSNBC fared — ending with a negative credibility score. The high-profile MSNBC is most closely ranked to Crosswalk.com, a small news site with a religious bias.

Back to start of the article: A Good Web Site Design Brings Trust and Success

Continue with:

• NONPROFIT Web SiteS: CREDIBILITY RESULTS
  
• TRAVEL Web SiteS: CREDIBILITY RESULTS