My Thoughts on Comments

Comments on the article "Revolt against high-stakes standardized testing growing-and so does its impact"

Credible:

Not Pictured: Further listing of organizations and a link to edtrust.org

This commenter seems composed and knowledgable. Their are neither fearful nor fantasizing the issue they have and present their opinion in a very direct way. It is because of this knowledge and composure that it can be assumed this commenter feels passionate about both defending the group mentioned in the quote, as well as representing all the listed organization to support their claim.

This commenter is credible for three outstanding reasons: their composure, their knowledge, and their forwardness.  They are not driven by emotion in their logic, but are evidently passionate about the subject; a very fine line to walk and remain objective. They are clearly knowledgable of how to rebut the comment they found false and demonstrate that knowledge very methodically with a rather intimidating and lengthy list. Finally, their forwardness in both their language and web sight link demonstrates a confidence that furthers their credibility. They sarcastically acknowledge the quote and then go on to specifically list the organizations that prove the quote wrong and goes on to include a link to a source. It is there three characteristics that make this specific comment credible.

The author of this comment, like the above comment, is collected and knowledgable. They do not seem driven by uncontrolled emotion nor disillusioned by a false hope. This commenter does seem to value the topic, but also respecting others on the web sight. Their acknowledgment of the other commenter comes off as neither judgmental nor disrespectful. They clarify what they are talking about and value understanding based on how they present their ideas in a numbered list. 

This comment, written in response to another (not pictured), is an additional credible comment due to its respectful tone, understandable phrasing, and use of links. Any use of link can be demonstrative of a credible comment because it shows awareness of the topic and investment in it. Their language and format make their points understandable, even for someone not exposed to the information, meaning they are mindful of readers; a vital quality for a credible comment. And their level tone and respectful nature make them a credible source based on professionalism. 

Non-Credible:

Like the previous comments I've looked at, this commenter does not seem fearful or anxious. The do, however, seem to be fantasizing about the effectiveness of the program they mentioned. You can tell because of their confidence in their comment with the lack of any support. They use one sentence to declare a solution to a problem that is clearly more complex then they are letting on. They believe in a quick, effective solutions and have a very sure-of-their-solution mentality based on the briskness of their comment. 

This comment is lacking in credibility because of its false confidence. This is the combination of an over-exagerated comment with a lack of any support whatsoever. The commenter, though they possess an air of confidence, does not present an argument. They make a monuments claim and leave it at that. A credible source would, at least, present some form of reason behind a powerful claim like the one made by this commenter. 

This comment is refuting the use of the Gate Foundation link provided by the commenter Virginia SGP (look above). This commenter values looking at all perspectives, based on the fact that it is refuting the use of a source because of a one-sided perspective. They are not anxious, nor irrationally hopeful.

This comment lacks credibility because, while it makes a rational statement, it does not follow through with any reason. It challenges the use of a well-discussed source and give no evidence as to why it is not a credible source. It fails to provide an alternate source, which makes it even less credible in comparison to the comment it is refuting. It's relaxed phrasing also makes it less credible again in comparison to the comment it is challenging, which contains professional language and solid evidence. 

REFLECTION:

After reading through the comment analysis of Laurence and Isaak, I found that sometimes it's beneficial to format brief analysi like these comment evaluations in a format that is quick and understandable like Laurence's and direct and to the point like Isaak. After reading some of Isaak's evaluations, though, I felt the importance is remaining objective when evaluating the opinions of others (as well as remaining level headed while commenting, but that's a given at this point). His phrasing was critical, but articulate and communicated an opinion, which made me interested in reading what he had to say, but a little nervous as to his objectivity. Luckily, he remained collected, even talking about a behavior that bothered him (unnecessary childish comments).