Talk:Bridget Doherty

From SI410
Revision as of 02:45, 19 February 2020 by Pratapak (Talk | contribs) (Kavya Pratapa's Comments)

Jump to: navigation, search

Comment from Hailey Harris

Hi Bridget! I found your article to be very well-written and interesting. I appreciated how you took time to walk the reader through your process of searching yourself and analyzing your data broker information. I thought your argument of how it is easier to connect names rather than lineages was on point. However, I was left with a couple of questions that I think you could answer in a reflection section. For example, a lot of the information that populated my personal Instant Checkmate report came from my LinkedIn. Do you have a LinkedIn? Do you have a Facebook? And if you do have these accounts, state that and reflect on why they wouldn’t appear in your Instant Checkmate. If you aren’t comfortable going into specific detail, I think your article would benefit from at least a little bit of explanation as to why you think nothing appeared in your search results. Good job!

Kavya Pratapa's Comments

Hi Bridget! I think you did a great job of bringing your voice into your article. I also really enjoyed the conversational tone you took as it made the article easy to understand and fun to read. Something that I felt you could improve upon was breaking up your 'Google Search' and 'Data Broker' sections into more subcomponents. I really liked that you discuss your attempts to find information about you by using two different search queries (Bridget Doherty vs. Bridget Doherty IL), but I think that putting your observations from both search queries in separate subsections can allow a reader to map the contrasts/similarities more easily . Similarly, in your data broker section, separating your discussion into 'accurate' vs. 'inaccurate' pieces of information you saw would help present your arguments more clearly. I really like how you discuss the consequence of seeing falsified information about you despite your attempts to not have an online presence, so I would actually recommend making that into a separate section in your article. I think this could be a great place to bring in some of the readings on anonymity from this week's lectures as well. One last thing that I would recommend is taking some more time to proofread your piece. While the grammatical errors didn't hinder my understanding of your argument, there were a couple places throughout your article where there were spelling errors. Overall, great effort!