Difference between revisions of "Talk:Nate LaMoreaux"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Pratik Goswami: | + | Pratik Goswami Comments: |
After reading your online data identity, I was very impressed with the focus you had on actually writing about your online identity. None of the paragraphs were irrelevant to the theme you wanted to get across to your readers. From what I gather, your overarching theme for your data identity is: Caution on the internet. This theme is interwoven into all the different things you discuss and you introduce it very well in your introduction and continue to add upon it using the google searches as well as data broker sites to further talk about why you stay cautious on the internet. However, an area of improvement I would like to suggest is to your Data Broker Profile Section of your identity statement. You talk about how shocked at how much and how little information the data broker site found out about you, but why are you shocked at how little information they found out about you? Wouldn’t you want this to be the case since you have been cautious and selective in the online accounts you create and sites you visit? Seems to me the data broker site has been able to find enough information about you given your cautiousness, even though the data was somewhat incorrect. Maybe incorporate this idea into your statement as well: “even though you were cautious your data was still able to be found online. How ethical is that?” Also, talk about patterns that emerged in your searches. Did multiple data broker sites have your information listed incorrectly or was it just the one that professor Conway used. There are numerous free data broker websites online (try Checkmate or BeenVerified), does the information on these sites have any or incorrect information about you? Overall, your statement is very interesting to read and your voice shows in your writing whether it be your captions or the way you phrase things in your writing. You just need to add some points about the ethicality of information found online and some more deep insight in your conclusion and you should be good to go. | After reading your online data identity, I was very impressed with the focus you had on actually writing about your online identity. None of the paragraphs were irrelevant to the theme you wanted to get across to your readers. From what I gather, your overarching theme for your data identity is: Caution on the internet. This theme is interwoven into all the different things you discuss and you introduce it very well in your introduction and continue to add upon it using the google searches as well as data broker sites to further talk about why you stay cautious on the internet. However, an area of improvement I would like to suggest is to your Data Broker Profile Section of your identity statement. You talk about how shocked at how much and how little information the data broker site found out about you, but why are you shocked at how little information they found out about you? Wouldn’t you want this to be the case since you have been cautious and selective in the online accounts you create and sites you visit? Seems to me the data broker site has been able to find enough information about you given your cautiousness, even though the data was somewhat incorrect. Maybe incorporate this idea into your statement as well: “even though you were cautious your data was still able to be found online. How ethical is that?” Also, talk about patterns that emerged in your searches. Did multiple data broker sites have your information listed incorrectly or was it just the one that professor Conway used. There are numerous free data broker websites online (try Checkmate or BeenVerified), does the information on these sites have any or incorrect information about you? Overall, your statement is very interesting to read and your voice shows in your writing whether it be your captions or the way you phrase things in your writing. You just need to add some points about the ethicality of information found online and some more deep insight in your conclusion and you should be good to go. | ||
Revision as of 00:07, 18 February 2020
Pratik Goswami Comments:
After reading your online data identity, I was very impressed with the focus you had on actually writing about your online identity. None of the paragraphs were irrelevant to the theme you wanted to get across to your readers. From what I gather, your overarching theme for your data identity is: Caution on the internet. This theme is interwoven into all the different things you discuss and you introduce it very well in your introduction and continue to add upon it using the google searches as well as data broker sites to further talk about why you stay cautious on the internet. However, an area of improvement I would like to suggest is to your Data Broker Profile Section of your identity statement. You talk about how shocked at how much and how little information the data broker site found out about you, but why are you shocked at how little information they found out about you? Wouldn’t you want this to be the case since you have been cautious and selective in the online accounts you create and sites you visit? Seems to me the data broker site has been able to find enough information about you given your cautiousness, even though the data was somewhat incorrect. Maybe incorporate this idea into your statement as well: “even though you were cautious your data was still able to be found online. How ethical is that?” Also, talk about patterns that emerged in your searches. Did multiple data broker sites have your information listed incorrectly or was it just the one that professor Conway used. There are numerous free data broker websites online (try Checkmate or BeenVerified), does the information on these sites have any or incorrect information about you? Overall, your statement is very interesting to read and your voice shows in your writing whether it be your captions or the way you phrase things in your writing. You just need to add some points about the ethicality of information found online and some more deep insight in your conclusion and you should be good to go.
