It chose to research the website http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/ .
At first the .net seems like it should be more creditable but the
story if what made me question the validity.
The links embedded in the website mostly went to other website with the
same basic URL including the “zapatopi” part.
Another link went to another website that talked about a book but it was
not on the same subject as their website and had no real connection.
When searching the subject of the tree octopus in Google the first
website listed was in fact the link to the website in question. Next, it showed
a link to images with multiple images of tree octopuses. Some actually looked very real and other were
obvious jokes because they were toy or stuffed octopuses that someone put in a
tree. My 4th link listed was Wikipedia.
I use the website all the time! Here is stated that it was a hoax and gave the
details of origin. I did find it
interesting that Wikipedia stated that the website had links to other hoax
species but also had links to real species, which I didn’t find on my initial
investigation. Also, Wikipedia stated
that 24 out of 25 seventh grade students believed that it was real. Yahoo search engine sorted the links in the
same order as Google.
I did not notice a lot of advertisement in my search. I think this is because: 1. I am so use to
overlooking it and 2. I was focused on looking for something specific on the
page.
Google, being a crawler website, sorted the data in terms of relevance
starting with the actual website and then listing Wikipedia a reliable website.
Went searching for the author on the whois website there was no
search results. Then simplifying the
search it found the name of an individual.
However, this name is different than the name of the author listed on
the website. The basic website is about
conspiracies. It’s states that they are “your
source for conspiracies and other diversions”.
No comments:
Post a Comment