online and offline encyclopedia
The article is about the communal online encyclopedia's validation and reliability. The author states that traditional encyclopedias are more reliable than online and to prove his view, he stated some of the claims. However, the professor in the lecture sees flaws in every claim and proved that online sources are reliable.
To begin with, the author states that online encyclopedia lacks credential information and in some cases, they are even inaccurate and states that traditional are written by trained experts. However, the professor disagrees with this claim and states that online is also written by a trained person. She carries on her point and states that there are many times that traditional were never close to accurate and with no authentication. She also added that in online encyclopedias there are chances to correct the factual information but so is not possible in the traditional encyclopedia.
Another claim made by the author is that may the content is written right but online is accessible easy, there are chances that hackers, add or delete the information, and once these changes are made users aren't able to differentiate between correct and incorrect content. The professor sees this claim as also false as the online encyclopedias are aware of these consequences and to protect this they protect the article. Also, put crucial things in a format and has a special monitor which detects if any changes are made in these formats.
Th another point made by the author is that online write a lot of unnecessary information on a trivial topic which misleads the reader and distracts the reader, however, so is not possible in traditional. The professor proved this wrong by explaining that this is in fact an advantage, diversity of content on the internet shows the diversity of people's interests. She added that earlier traditional has a limited space to write the content so they wrote in that availability but now because of huge space they find it easy to write more about a topic.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-07-26 | Uttama Shekhawat | 73 | view |
| 2022-01-14 | ManishAdh | 80 | view |
| 2020-01-19 | Seyed Armin Mirhosseini | 88 | view |
| 2019-02-27 | sara.87 | 81 | view |
| 2018-06-25 | nastaran1992 | 73 | view |
- R robustus were active hunter or not 65
- In order for any work of art for example a film a novel a poem or a song to have merit it must be understandable to most people Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning f 50
- online program are better or offline program 76
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement It is more interesting to read a good book or see a good movie the second time than the first Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 70
- now relation re not beneficial as they were 70
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 42, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'encyclopedias'' or 'encyclopedia's'?
Suggestion: encyclopedias'; encyclopedia's
...he article is about the communal online encyclopedias validation and reliability. The author ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 196, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...online and to prove his view, he stated some of the claims. However, the professor in the l...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 207, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: aren't
..., and once these changes are made users arent able to differentiate between correct a...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, so, then, in fact, in some cases, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 10.4613686534 191% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 7.30242825607 233% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 22.412803532 147% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1689.0 1373.03311258 123% => OK
No of words: 333.0 270.72406181 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07207207207 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27180144563 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81336348757 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 155.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.465465465465 0.540411800872 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 552.6 419.366225166 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.406317745 49.2860985944 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.923076923 110.228320801 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.6153846154 21.698381199 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.84615384615 7.06452816374 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.239811112984 0.272083759551 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.10864469159 0.0996497079465 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.101223702937 0.0662205650399 153% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.164911391981 0.162205337803 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0958467636392 0.0443174109184 216% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 13.3589403974 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 53.8541721854 70% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.0289183223 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.39 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 63.6247240618 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.