EU jobs, EU tests, Epso exams, knowledge in EU matters, verbal/numerical reasoning, Public Administration

UNOFFICIAL DISCUSSION FORUM about EPSO tests/exams/competitions in fields like Administrators (Public Administration, Law, Economics, Audit), Translators, Secretaries, Assistants (AST)

All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ]



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

What is your mark for the clarity of the information provided on the europa.eu?
Very poor clarity 7%  7%  [ 4 ]
Chaotic but I find my way in it 41%  41%  [ 22 ]
Acceptable 46%  46%  [ 25 ]
Exceptional 6%  6%  [ 3 ]
Total votes : 54
Author Message
 Post subject: www.europa.eu
PostPosted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 2:32 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 6:02 pm
Posts: 168
We would like to assess the quality of some websites. We will start with the http://europa.eu . Please feel free to express your opinion by participating at the polls, or by leaving your comments as reply to this post.


Last edited by admin on Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.



(experimental) click the language code to translate to that language: bg cs da de et el en es fi fr it lv lt hu mt nl pl pt ro sk sl
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: www.europa.eu
PostPosted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 1
[quote="admin"]We would like to assess the quality of some websites. We will start with the http://europa.eu . Please feel free to express your opinion by participating at the polls, or by leaving your comments as reply to this post.[/quote]


very good one , readable and well ballanced as colors and design...




(experimental) click the language code to translate to that language: bg cs da de et el en es fi fr it lv lt hu mt nl pl pt ro sk sl
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 10:08 pm
Posts: 211
Dear admin,

I would suggest to add another criterium concerning the quality of the content towards poor scoring. Indeed, it might be "acceptable" for a broad audience but it is far from being exceptional for someone who wants to know more.

fab




(experimental) click the language code to translate to that language: bg cs da de et el en es fi fr it lv lt hu mt nl pl pt ro sk sl
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:36 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 6:02 pm
Posts: 168
Fab,

not sure if it is clear what you mean. Can you pls. give an idea, how you would formulate the poll QAs?

M

fab wrote:
Dear admin,

I would suggest to add another criterium concerning the quality of the content towards poor scoring. Indeed, it might be "acceptable" for a broad audience but it is far from being exceptional for someone who wants to know more.

fab




(experimental) click the language code to translate to that language: bg cs da de et el en es fi fr it lv lt hu mt nl pl pt ro sk sl
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 10:08 pm
Posts: 211
admin wrote:
Fab,

not sure if it is clear what you mean. Can you pls. give an idea, how you would formulate the poll QAs?

M

fab wrote:
Dear admin,

I would suggest to add another criterium concerning the quality of the content towards poor scoring. Indeed, it might be "acceptable" for a broad audience but it is far from being exceptional for someone who wants to know more.

fab


Under clarity, I guess you mean that the website in question presents a good overview of concerned information. In my view, I would understand it as well as a performance of transparency for all people who want to know more to easily get access to more background information. To sum it up, I would question if "the quality of the contents is valued" through a presupposed clarity of the website in question. In other words, I can not separate the form of the contents from what lies under, that is, one does not achieve a big deal by only displaying informations, be it in a nice way or not. For me to express a clarity level of such a website would necessarily include the relevancy of information regarding the targeted audience .

I hope I am myself clear enough 8)

Your fab

P.S.: trying to explain what I meant helped me think that I would vote for "very poor" or "chaotic" in that case, taking into account the related relevancy of contents.
N.B.: To the criterias, I would add a "don't know" option. Sure, one can argue that if you don't know europa.eu, you have little chance of succeeding in an EPSO competition (because of the main and basic informations the site offers). However, if you are deeply interested in EU affairs, you should spend time on other websites (e.g., while preparing an oral examination), and that's why you may not know what's going on on the website...




(experimental) click the language code to translate to that language: bg cs da de et el en es fi fr it lv lt hu mt nl pl pt ro sk sl
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:59 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 6:02 pm
Posts: 168
What you say is fine, but it is difficult to write down those things in one short sentence as possible answer.

Suggestion:
write a (or several) new poll question related to europa.eu site with possible answers, and we will post it here.


Thanks
M

fab wrote:
admin wrote:
Fab,

not sure if it is clear what you mean. Can you pls. give an idea, how you would formulate the poll QAs?

M

fab wrote:
Dear admin,

I would suggest to add another criterium concerning the quality of the content towards poor scoring. Indeed, it might be "acceptable" for a broad audience but it is far from being exceptional for someone who wants to know more.

fab


Under clarity, I guess you mean that the website in question presents a good overview of concerned information. In my view, I would understand it as well as a performance of transparency for all people who want to know more to easily get access to more background information. To sum it up, I would question if "the quality of the contents is valued" through a presupposed clarity of the website in question. In other words, I can not separate the form of the contents from what lies under, that is, one does not achieve a big deal by only displaying informations, be it in a nice way or not. For me to express a clarity level of such a website would necessarily include the relevancy of information regarding the targeted audience .

I hope I am myself clear enough 8)

Your fab

P.S.: trying to explain what I meant helped me think that I would vote for "very poor" or "chaotic" in that case, taking into account the related relevancy of contents.
N.B.: To the criterias, I would add a "don't know" option. Sure, one can argue that if you don't know europa.eu, you have little chance of succeeding in an EPSO competition (because of the main and basic informations the site offers). However, if you are deeply interested in EU affairs, you should spend time on other websites (e.g., while preparing an oral examination), and that's why you may not know what's going on on the website...




(experimental) click the language code to translate to that language: bg cs da de et el en es fi fr it lv lt hu mt nl pl pt ro sk sl
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group