Difference between revisions of "Talk:Ashley Carroll"
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Hi Ashley! Your beginning paragraph is a banger and did a fantastic job of drawing me in. Your conversational tone is also easy on a reader, especially with how you chunk it up instead of leaving huge blocks of text. Additionally, like your choice of including a picture of one of your doppelgangers (it's pretty funny), as it also drives the point home about how many other people with your name are out there. | Hi Ashley! Your beginning paragraph is a banger and did a fantastic job of drawing me in. Your conversational tone is also easy on a reader, especially with how you chunk it up instead of leaving huge blocks of text. Additionally, like your choice of including a picture of one of your doppelgangers (it's pretty funny), as it also drives the point home about how many other people with your name are out there. | ||
| − | It seems to me your theme is about being "invisible" with a small digital footprint, which is interesting especially since your name is relatively common, but it might've been a good idea to focus on what you happened to find that on actually yours in regards to the authentically you it was. Perhaps one way you could do this is by saying that these are not these online yous are not you. Formatting wise, I suggest more subsection headings like | + | It seems to me your theme is about being "invisible" with a small digital footprint, which is interesting especially since your name is relatively common, but it might've been a good idea to focus on what you happened to find that on actually yours in regards to the authentically you it was. |
| + | Perhaps one way you could do this is by saying that these are not these online yous are not you. You rightly note how your are misrepresented and there isn't much information, but more details should be given about how misrepresented you are (i.e. what information on your own LinkedIn is correct in how fully it describes who you are, like your personality and interests?). | ||
| + | You use a variety of sources while citing those places and obviously put a lot of effort forth to find your information, but I think you should dig deeper into what it really means to be Ashley Carroll and compare that to all the information on your Ashley Carroll that can be found. | ||
| + | The picture where it says "0 Results for Ashley Carroll" could possibly be replaced with something more meaningful, such as a picture relating to your own identity so that it complements your doppelganger. | ||
| + | It may also be a good idea to somehow introduce class readings earlier in your article, so it follows better when you elaborate later on. Although I agree with the analysis at the end about sex offenders, I would suggest omitting that since that doesn't follow the prompt. Formatting wise, I suggest more subsection headings like | ||
==this,== | ==this,== | ||
===and this=== | ===and this=== | ||
| − | to better organize and guide the reader. It also provides a nice summary at the end for someone to consider once they finish reading your piece. One way you could group sections that I noticed other people doing is by chunking your data broker information separate from other sources; maybe analyze your own personal profiles in relation to the real you? | + | to better organize and guide the reader. It also provides a nice summary at the end for someone to consider once they finish reading your piece. One way you could group sections that I noticed other people doing is by chunking your data broker information separate from other sources; maybe analyze your own personal profiles in relation to the real you? |
Overall, your style is distinct but I suggest making it more "wiki-like," focusing on comparing yourself to your online self, and creating a conclusion based on this analysis. | Overall, your style is distinct but I suggest making it more "wiki-like," focusing on comparing yourself to your online self, and creating a conclusion based on this analysis. | ||
Revision as of 22:16, 17 February 2019
Janet Vu
Hi Ashley! Your beginning paragraph is a banger and did a fantastic job of drawing me in. Your conversational tone is also easy on a reader, especially with how you chunk it up instead of leaving huge blocks of text. Additionally, like your choice of including a picture of one of your doppelgangers (it's pretty funny), as it also drives the point home about how many other people with your name are out there.
It seems to me your theme is about being "invisible" with a small digital footprint, which is interesting especially since your name is relatively common, but it might've been a good idea to focus on what you happened to find that on actually yours in regards to the authentically you it was. Perhaps one way you could do this is by saying that these are not these online yous are not you. You rightly note how your are misrepresented and there isn't much information, but more details should be given about how misrepresented you are (i.e. what information on your own LinkedIn is correct in how fully it describes who you are, like your personality and interests?). You use a variety of sources while citing those places and obviously put a lot of effort forth to find your information, but I think you should dig deeper into what it really means to be Ashley Carroll and compare that to all the information on your Ashley Carroll that can be found. The picture where it says "0 Results for Ashley Carroll" could possibly be replaced with something more meaningful, such as a picture relating to your own identity so that it complements your doppelganger. It may also be a good idea to somehow introduce class readings earlier in your article, so it follows better when you elaborate later on. Although I agree with the analysis at the end about sex offenders, I would suggest omitting that since that doesn't follow the prompt. Formatting wise, I suggest more subsection headings like
this,
and this
to better organize and guide the reader. It also provides a nice summary at the end for someone to consider once they finish reading your piece. One way you could group sections that I noticed other people doing is by chunking your data broker information separate from other sources; maybe analyze your own personal profiles in relation to the real you? Overall, your style is distinct but I suggest making it more "wiki-like," focusing on comparing yourself to your online self, and creating a conclusion based on this analysis.
