Learn More About Us
Evaluating a website is a risk-reduction task. Your goal is to decide whether the content is reliable enough to use for research, citationA mention of a business's name, address, and phone number on other websites., purchasing decisions, or professional work. A credible page makes its claims testable: it cites sources, identifies the author, discloses incentives, and shows signs of maintenance. A weak page asks you to trust it without evidence.
Use the seven checks below as a repeatable process. Each check produces a clearer “confidence level” you can defend: high confidence, medium confidence, or low confidence. If the topic is high-stakes (health, finance, legal, security), apply all seven checks and require stronger evidence before you act.
Takeaway: Treat credibility like a decision: verify evidence, reduce uncertainty, and document why you trust (or don’t trust) a page.
Phase | Timeline | Key Activities | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
1. Accuracy Check | 10–15 min | Identify 2–3 key claims; verify each using 2 independent reputable sources; confirm citations support the claim and include dates | Verified claims list + confidence note (High/Med/Low) |
2. Authority Check | 5–10 min | Confirm author name + role; review credentials/bio; validate identity via one independent reference (staff page, institutional profile, directory) | Author verification summary + risk flags |
3. Objectivity Check | 5–10 min | Scan for bias cues (loaded language, absolute claims); check for tradeoffs/limitations; identify incentives (ads, affiliates, sponsors) and disclosed criteria | Bias/incentive assessment + disclosure status |
4. Currency Check | 5–10 min | Confirm publish/updated dates; for fast-changing topics require updates within 12 months; test maintenance by clicking ~5 outbound links | Freshness rating + maintenance signals (pass/fail) |
5. Coverage Check | 10–15 min | List your top 5 subquestions; confirm the page answers them with specifics (steps, examples, edge cases); note major omissions | Coverage score + missing-items list |
6. Relevancy Check | 5–10 min | Define your goal in 1 sentence; confirm the page matches your audience, location, constraints, and intent; check for clear “use when / avoid when” boundaries | Fit-for-purpose decision (use/skip) + assumptions |
7. Affiliations Check | 5–10 min | Review About/Editorial/Ads/Affiliate disclosures; identify conflicts tied to claims; require transparent comparison criteria for recommendations | Conflict-of-interest notes + adjusted confidence |
Total Timeline: ~45–80 minutes per website (or ~10–15 minutes for a quick screen using Phases 1–4)
Accuracy is measurable. Start by identifying 2–3 key claims on the page (statistics, definitions, recommendations, or causal statements). Then verify each claim using at least two independent, reputable sources. If the claim cannot be verified, reduce your confidence.
Next, inspect citations. Prefer primary or authoritative sources (official data, peer-reviewed research, standards bodies, named experts). Check whether the cited source actually supports the claim and whether dates are provided for data and studies. Watch for vague references (“research shows”) with no link, statistics with no year, or citations that leadA potential customer referred by an affiliate who has shown interest in the product or service but h... to unrelated pages. If the page uses numbers, you should be able to trace them to an original source within two clicks.
Authority is not a label; it’s evidence. A credible page identifies who wrote it and why they are qualified. Look for a byline with a real name, role, and a bio that includes relevant experience, education, or credentials. For specialized topics, require stronger proof (licenses, certifications, professional roles, or publications).
Confirm identity with at least one independent reference, such as a staff page, institutional profile, professional directory, or consistent work history. Also check whether the site describes its editorial process (review standards, fact-checking, medical/legal review, or update policy). If the author is missing, anonymous, or unverified, downgrade confidence unless the page is heavily supported by primary sources and reputable citations.
Objectivity can be assessed by signals. First, look for language that indicates persuasion rather than analysis: extreme certainty (“always,” “never”), emotional framing, or attacks on alternatives. Second, check whether the page presents limitations, tradeoffs, or conditions where the advice changes. Informational content usually includes caveats and scope.
Then evaluate incentives. Identify affiliateAn individual or company that promotes a product or service in exchange for a commission on the resu... links, sponsored sections, or product-first framing. If a page recommends a product or service, it should disclose compensation and explain selection criteria (what was compared, which metrics were used, and why the recommendation fits the use case). If the page only presents one option, includes no counterpoints, and provides no evaluation criteria, treat it as low-objectivity content even if it is well-written.
Currency is critical when facts change over time. First, find a publish date and a “last updated” date. If neither is visible, reduce confidence because you cannot assess timeliness. For fast-changing topics (SEO, software, security, policy), prefer pages updated within the last 12 months. For slower-changing topics (basic definitions), you can allow older dates, but sources should still be valid.
Next, test maintenance. Click 5 outbound links at random. If multiple links are broken or redirected to unrelated pages, that’s a measurable signal the content is not maintained. Also scan for outdated references (old tool names, retired features, old screenshots, or stale statistics). If the page relies on time-sensitive claims and shows weak maintenance, treat it as a high-risk source.
Coverage means the page answers the questions a reasonable reader would ask. A simple test is to list your top five subquestions and see if the page answers them with specifics (definitions, steps, examples, edge cases, and references). If the page repeats general statements without operational detail, it is shallow.
Depth shows up as explainable logic: clear criteria, measurable steps, or evidence you can validate. Breadth shows up as scope: multiple relevant subtopics, not just one angle. Also check for omissions that change the conclusion. For example, if a page gives a recommendation but fails to define assumptions, constraints, or exceptions, its coverage is incomplete. In decision-making terms, incomplete coverage increases uncertainty and can lead to wrong actions even when individual statements are accurate.
Relevancy is “fit for purpose.” Start by stating your goal in one sentence (e.g., “choose a vendor,” “cite a definition,” “learn a process,” “make a compliance decision”). Then check whether the page’s headings and examples match that goal. If the page is not designed for your intent, it may waste time or mislead your decision.
Confirm scope and applicability. Check whether the page specifies audience level (beginner, advanced), geographic scope (country, region), and constraints (budget, timeline, tools, assumptions). If the content lacks these boundaries, you must supply them yourself, and that increases risk. High-relevancy pages include explicit conditions (“use this when…,” “avoid this when…”) and provide a clear path from information to action. Low-relevancy pages stay broad and avoid decision criteria.
Affiliations change incentives, and incentives change content. Look for disclosures in the About page, editorial policy, advertising policy, partners/sponsors, and affiliate disclosures. A credible site makes these easy to find and easy to understand.
Then connect affiliations to claims. If the site is funded by or partnered with a company mentioned in the content, treat recommendations as higher risk unless the page provides transparent evaluation criteria and cites independent evidence. Also check whether product comparisons include consistent metrics across options (price, features, limitations, and suitability). A site can still be useful with sponsorships, but transparency determines how much weight you should give its conclusions. If disclosures are missing or vague, reduce confidence and rely more heavily on independent sources.
Use seven checks: accuracy (verify 2–3 key claims), authority (confirm author identity and qualifications), objectivity (bias and incentives), currency (dates and maintenance), coverage (depth and breadth), relevancy (fit to your goal), and affiliations (funding and conflicts). For high-stakes topics, require stronger evidence at every step and cross-check claims before acting.
Accuracy is whether the claims can be verified with reliable sources. Authority is whether the author or publisher is qualified and accountable. High authority does not guarantee accuracy, and accuracy can exist without a famous author if the work is well-cited and verifiable. Use both checks to reduce risk.
Missing authorship is a measurable risk factor because accountability and expertise cannot be confirmed. In that case, require stronger citations, clear editorial policies, and verification from independent sources. If the topic is high-stakes, prefer a source with identifiable authorship and documented review standards.
A credible website supports decisions with evidence. Check accuracy by verifying 2–3 key claims, confirm author authority with credentials you can validate, evaluate objectivity by identifying incentives and missing counterpoints, and confirm currency through dates and link health. Then test coverage, relevancy, and affiliations to understand how complete, applicable, and unbiased the content is. The result is a clearer confidence level you can justify.
Takeaway: Assign confidence based on verifiable evidence and transparency, then cross-check before you act on the information.
