We were all hungry and thirsty for something to eat but my little sister insisted on having cake and one of us got up to eat with her. I ate the cake and she the apple (my treat). When we got back, she wanted to share with us her delicious cake but I told her that I would have to get to work immediately and by then it would be too late to share anything. So she ate another apple. I ate the cake and when I got back home, told my sister that it was her turn to eat the cake and that I would be right back to cook her some rice.
What a contrast this is to the guidelines provided by James Jones “The Experts Secrets”. The experts have main content, expertise and MC. Your expertise and MC are your character, your ability to generate a main content from a variety of experts. In this case, you’re using the best of both the experts and the guidelines to build your web presence.
For example, James Jones’ website, which he promotes, has a main content page containing expert articles, testimonials, podcasts, free e-books, videos and press releases but also has my content placed at the bottom of the page. On the my page, there’s an area where you can “Share This”. James explains what he’s talking about by providing a few examples such as this: “I shared this with Twitter followers; they’re really excited about starting a new project (an ebook) using the Power of Conversational Marketing.” James provides the links to his web pages where the people can read his actual content. In this case, the visitors are his buyers, and he has expert knowledge, expertise and my content on his web page that directs them to that page and provides them with his recommendations.
The Wikipedia page is another great example of this. You have articles in the main body, which is called a resource box, and then there’s a section at the end called a Trustworthiness issue. You can see the Wikipedia page for yourself and you’ll note that it doesn’t have any links and it has nothing listed under it regarding the trustworthiness issue. The Wikipedia page for raters guidelines provides a link to the rater’s guidelines page, which is a page that provides a list of trusted sources, which is a more authoritative source. The Wikipedia page for this name has links to other authoritative sites on the subject, so you can see the problem with relying upon this as a reliability factor.
A related problem is the tendency to rely upon a single quality assessment tool for determining a site’s ranking well. There are many tools on the Internet and each of them is used for a different purpose. Some are used by search engines to evaluate the quality of a website’s content, while others are used by human visitors. Human visitors look at sites in a different way than search engines and this makes it difficult to rely on a single quality assessment tool as a universal standard. For example, some people may look at a site’s appearance and design far differently from others, so it is entirely possible for the human nose to overlook the use of high-quality content in the design.
The bottom line is that a single quality assessment tool cannot be considered to be a universal yardstick for assessing whether or not a website has the attributes of being a trustworthy source of information. This means that you have to determine your own standards for determining whether or not a website is a credible authority in its given topic area. You do this by evaluating each of the factors we’ve mentioned in this article, which are Wikipedia page ranking, the reliability of its associated expert advisor, and the trustworthiness of its sources.