3.4 The CRAP Method

There is a helpful set of guidelines for helping students find good materials. It’s called CRAP and it stands for currency, reliability, authority, and purpose/point of view.

Note: some libraries use CRAAP instead of CRAP, adding a second “A” for “accuracy.” The simple CRAP method, below, incorporates “accuracy” into the “reliable” category. Besides, using CRAP is more fun.

Finding Good Material on the World Wide Web?

Of course. But doing so can be tricky. Think for a moment. If you’ve found a website or resource you feel might be useful, how do you convince yourself that it follows the CRAP approach?

Keep in mind that your college work is different from your day-to-day activities. For instance, we may surf the Web for several different reasons, perhaps for pleasure, perhaps out of boredom, or maybe chasing links. We can search and read as we like; nothing is at stake, so to speak. But in your college work, there’s plenty at stake. Part of doing solid work at the college level has to do with finding strong source materials and using them correctly and effectively.

So, how do you find good material on the Web?

Finding good materials on the Internet takes a bit of detective work. You can use your CRAP detective skills, but it also helps to know a little something about how to navigate and use Web materials.

Domain name endings

The domain name ending refers to the letters that follow the period at the end of a Web address (also called a URL, or uniform resource locator). For example, .com, edu, and .org are all domain name endings.

Different domain name endings refer to different kinds of websites and can be related to the quality of the site’s material. Therefore, you have to examine them to decide whether they’re reliable. Here are some examples:

.com: a commercial or personal site. These are generally considered to be some of the least reliable sources because anyone can create one and they’re typically used for either private blogs, web pages, and other personal uses or commercial purposes and sales. (CRAP+/-, i.e., “CRAP positive or negative”)

.org: these used to belong solely to non-profit sites, such as The American Cancer Society. But these days, anyone can purchase and use a .org site for any purpose. Thus the content on a .org site may vary widely in terms of its authority. (CRAP+/-)

.edu: educational sites, usually maintained by colleges and universities but sometimes by high schools as well. These sites are considered to be very reliable. (CRAP+)

.gov and .mil: government and military sites, maintained by the governments and the military. These sites are considered to be very reliable. (CRAP+)

Authors

In many cases, it’s easy to find an author’s name on an online site. Evaluate the author fully—don’t just assume they know what they’re doing. For example,

• Do they have the right academic credentials or professional experience to back up their authority? For instance, someone who’s spent their life as a short-order cook wouldn’t be considered an authority on astronomy, nor would a PhD-level astronomer be considered an expert on the art of donut making.
• Have they published work in the field?
• Does a quick review of the topic or field suggest that they’re a known expert in that area?

Sometimes pages will list an author’s bio, résumé, or curriculum vitae (CV) on the site, allowing you to find out more about their education, work, and publication history. You can always do a Web search to find out more about them.

Sometimes an online site will look good but won’t show an author’s name. Does that mean you shouldn’t trust the site?

Not necessarily.

Many sites employ a staff of writers or freelance writers to create content on the site but don’t list the author’s name. For example, the National Institute of Health’s information page about headaches lists no authors. Scroll to the page bottom, and you’ll see the page was “prepared by: Office of Communications and Public Liaison.” However, the NIH is a highly respected national institution, and its site is full of information that meets our CRAP criteria. They list no authors, but they point to the information’s origin, and we can be confident that they are relying on strong writers for their material. Is this a useful site? Absolutely.

Periodical sites may post articles that don’t credit an author. Many of these sites have their department of journalists, writers, and freelance writers who create their content; these writers are often not credited individually.

Information/Page Date

You’ll want to check to see if the material you’re looking at has a date. As a general rule, the more current the date on the material, the better—especially if you’re discussing something that undergoes near-constant change, like politics, science, or technology.

But sometimes, information can be dated and still be useful. For instance, if I was writing a paper about organic gardening, I might be interested in some of Dr. Rudolph Steiner’s original lectures on biodynamic farming. These can be found on the Rudolph Steiner Archive and eLibrary. They date back to the 1920s, but their content is still considered useful and informative by many farmers (CRAP+). This example shows how important it is to consider the date when evaluating a source.

Sometimes, you won’t find any date on the material. Again, you’ll need to evaluate this in terms of the strength of the rest of the page. Scrolling to the bottom of a web page will often reveal a “last updated” date at the bottom, and this can help your decision process. If you can’t locate any dates on the material and the website hasn’t been updated in years, you should probably find a better source (CRAP-).

Other Points to Check

Consider the visual layout and appeal of the page:

• Does it look modern (CRAP+) or dated (CRAP-) (i.e., as if someone hasn’t updated it in years)?
• Are there lots of advertisements or direct attempts to sell products? (CRAP-)
• Are there pop-ups that interfere with navigating or reading the page? (CRAP-)

And take a look at the page content:

• Are the articles or content well-written and carefully proofread? Do they “sound” authoritative and feel reliable? (CRAP+)
• Do articles include links to other materials or links to credible and/or reliable source materials? (CRAP+) Has the content been carefully edited, or can you detect lots of errors? (CRAP-)
• Is the language smart and objective? (CRAP+) Or does it include biased language, slang, or frankly rude or negative words? (CRAP-) For example, let’s imagine you were researching a question of why people buy beverages in single-use plastic bottles. An objective, fact-based statement: Studies show that many people buy beverages in single-use plastic bottles because the bottles are convenient, easy to carry, and available just about anywhere. A biased, non-factual statement: Let’s face it—most people who buy single-use plastic bottles are just too lazy to carry reusable bottles. Or they just don’t care if they single-handedly destroy the environment.