1) Evaluators- Group 11, "Hot Wings"

2) Evaluees- Group 16, "Broken Beaker"

3) Visual Appeal- 8
   Most of the sites were good, but rather plain.

4) Content- 10
   There was lots of information

5) WWW suitability- 9
   The abudance of info. makes it good for the web

6) Relevance to 210- 9
   Plenty of facts that related to the chemical aspects of Prozac

7) Personal Gain- 9
   I learned more than I ever wanted to know about Prozac.

TOTAL SCORE: 45
 

1. group 12-Alkanetraz, 5 evaluators
2. group 16-broken beakers
3. 8
4. 8
5. 8
6. 9
7. 8

We felt there were too few visual sites for the amount of text present.

Group #16--Broken Beakers
        1) Visual Appeal--8
        2) Content--10
        3) WWW Suitability--9
        4) Relevance to Chem210--9
        5) Personal Gain--9
             
        Total=45
     Comments:  Very important subject.  Relevant, consise, informative.

Evaluators- Group 14:  Apocalypse

Evaluees-   Group 16:  Broken Beakers

Visual Appeal-  7
      The sites provided seemed to be mostly text, but the images that
were available were useful and interesting.

Content-  8
      The sites provided definitely conatined a lot of information.  There
was not any real basic background information though.

Suitability- 7
      The information on the sites didn't seem to be web-dependent, but
it was still much more accessible in this fashion.

Relevance-  7
      Most of the sites didn't really show a direct realtion to chem 210.
Relevance could be found but you sort of had to search for it.

Personal Gain-  8
      We learned a reasonable amount about prozac from this site.

1) Group 15  The Unknowns

2) Group 16  Broken Beaker

3) Visual appeal of sites: 6

4) Content of site:  9 

5) WWW suitability:  7

6) Relevance to chem 210:  7

7) Personal gain:  8


The visual appeal was quite low because better molecules are available.
The content was impressive, it contained a lot of good info.  It was
relevant to the class to start with, but progressively got irrelevant.