CPSnet Web Awards Program, awards for sites skies above.

Sections

News

» Speak...
2005-07-08, Awarded "Best Award Graphic" by AFA
We are proud to announce that the HITSASeal was selected as the "Best Award Graphic" by AFA, for the month of July of 2005. To all EUTODA' staff our sincere thanks for this honour! More info about this award is available at our "Honors Granted" section.
2005-06-22, Listed #2 among 31,000 web sites at Silktide SiteScore
With a rating of 9.5 (in 10 possible), the CPSnet Web Awards attained the second position at SiteScore's TOP 750, the best 750 from about 31,000 web sites tested until this date. Silktide SiteScore is a free tool which rates how well designed, popular and accessible a website is. The entire testing process is handled by advanced computer software. SiteScore also gathers user feedback on all the websites rated, to help judge how appealing a design is. SiteScore rates all websites on a scale of 1-10 (10 being the highest). Scores are broken down into 5 categories: Marketing, Design, Accessibility, Experience and User Feedback.
2005-06-07, listed at "Design Snack"
Design Snack is a database of websites rated based on the quality of their design and presentation. Its unique rating scale uses "cookies" and a site can get anywhere from 0-3 cookies, 3 being the highest. The CPSnet Web Awards were rated with "One Cookie" and listed under the "Award Sites" section of the portal.
2005-05-15, rated 6 by EUTODA
We are proud to announce that our program is now one of the few Web awards programs to achieve the prestigious level 6 at EUTODA, the Academy of Fine Awards. To all EUTODA' staff our sincere thanks for this honour!
2005-02-02, recognized as a 5+ Elite Award by Award Sites!
As it states at Award Sites!, "In recognition of owner, Carlos Simões, for his efforts going well beyond his award program in 'bettering the net through excellence!'". Needless to say that we at the CPSnet Web Awards are honoured by this outstanding distinction. Thank You AS! and thank you all the awardmasters and applicants that helped building this program!
2005-01-16, selected the Site Of The Year 2004!
It is that time of the year again, when we at the CPSnet Web Awards select the best site of the previous year. And this time, our panel of invited judges and our permanent review team have selected Tim's Spider Corner as the Best Site Of The Year 2004! Congratulations Tim Beylemans, for your outstanding website! Tim's Spider Corner is an educational site for all spider fans that addresses the conservation of nature. You will find bird eating spider information, as well as an assortment of pictures, handling tips, resource links, a spider knowledge quiz, and the complete anatomy of a bird eating spider.
2005-01-09, awarded the "Humanity Award 2005" by the The Rose Awards:
"We are very proud for being granted this distinction that it is given out to... Webmasters/webmistresses who give back of themselves to the worldwide Net community, offering their talents, their skills, their web sites, as resource points for other people who are interested in bettering themselves and their own sites ... These special people are a great asset to the World Community because they offer their advice and expertise to all who seek it, and everyday, they are making the Internet a better place to be!...". More info about this award is available at our "Honors Granted" section.
2004-10-20, listed at W3 Compliant Sites
Carlos Simoes is now a "W3 Compliant Sites Member". W3 Compliant Sites is a collection of web sites that were created by designers that conform with the W3C standards. This forum provides the opportunity for them to display their work and ideas in a community that shares common interests.
2004-10-13, listed at net-guide.co.uk
The CPSnet Web Awards are now listed at net-guide.co.uk with an accessibility rating of "excellent". This directory aims to promote accessible sites and gives an accessibility rating for the websites returned for any query entered. Similarly, the directory entries also carry an accessibility rating.
2004-06-07, rated 5 by WebsAwards
A special panel of external judges, convened to assess the programs owned by WebsAwards' Staff members, has rated the CPSnet Web Awards as a WebsAwards level 5 program.
2004-05-04, rated 3 by Awardia
The Awardia Index has rated the CPSnet Web Awards as a level 3 (in 4 possible, where the fourth level is designated "Corona").
2004-04-01, rated 4 by EAI:
The Euro Award Index reinstated this award program at "Level 4" (in 5 possible).
2004-03-23, joined WSG:
We have joined the Web Standards Group (WSG). The Web Standards Group is for web developers/designers who are interested in web standards, CSS and (X)HTML and related topics.
2004-03-15, web site redesigned:
The CPSnet Web Awards have now a brand new website, fully compliant XHTML 1.0 Strict, "made with CSS" and WCAG-WAI Level AAA. Thank you to Webmates, of which we are proud members, for all the help and for the inspiration!
2004-01-15, announced the Best Site of Year 2003:
Announced back in 15/January 2004: "Explore Mars Now". In this outstanding website, visitors can walk through a Mars habitat simulation learning about science and technology as they explore. There are over 100 photo-realistic 3-D images of a near term Mars Habitat concept that are "brought to life" in Macromedia Flash.
  • RSS 2.0 Feed: Latest Winners

CSS is not supported or is currently disabled. The page is still completely usable.

Content scoring

Created 2003-01-30. Reviewed 2005-04-25: Added clarifications and requisites for children' sites; Reworded the item in our Privacy Policy regarding "Children Privacy Protection".

If you wish to print this page for offline reading, you can load this page in a printer-friendly format. After printing, just hit refresh or reload the page in your browser and the standard stylesheet will be reloaded.

Items evaluation

Each item will be scored from 1 to 5 as detailed. Note that each item has a different weight in the final average calculation.

  1. Purpose (weight 5%) Top of page | Previous Item: Start | Next Item: 2
    1. No purpose stated
    2. Vague purpose
    3. Stated purpose, not fulfilled
    4. Clear purpose, most of it fulfilled
    5. Clear purpose, completely fulfilled
  2. Contact (weight 7%) Top of page | Previous Item: 1 | Next Item: 3
    1. No contact or information about responsible
    2. Brief information about responsible
    3. Contact email and brief information about responsible
    4. Contact email and detailed information about responsible
    5. Contact email, postal address and exhaustive information about responsible
  3. Content (weight 12%) Top of page | Previous Item: 2 | Next Item: 4
    1. less than 10 pages of relevant content
    2. at least 10 pages of relevant content
    3. at least 15 pages of relevant content
    4. at least 20 pages of relevant content
    5. more than 30 pages of relevant content
  4. Authority (weight 7%) Top of page | Previous Item: 3 | Next Item: 5
    1. No information whatsoever, not authoritative, no disclaimer
    2. Not authoritative, disclaimer
    3. Likely to be authoritative, no easy way of verifying
    4. Authoritative, easily verifiable
    5. Authoritative, easily verifiable, well-known as an authority in the subject
  5. Accuracy (weight 8%) Top of page | Previous Item: 4 | Next Item: 6
    1. Completely inaccurate, no sources stated
    2. Severe errors, no sources stated
    3. Minor errors and omissions, superficial approach, some sources stated
    4. Minor inaccuracies, good level of detail, sources referred
    5. Accurate, excellent level of detail and depth, sources detailed and annotated
  6. Language (weight 6%) Top of page | Previous Item: 5 | Next Item: 7
    1. More than 5 spelling, grammar or typographical errors in a single page
    2. Less than 5 spelling, grammar or typographical errors found during the review.
    3. Less than 3 spelling, grammar or typographical errors found during the review
    4. Less than 2 spelling, grammar or typographical errors found during the review
    5. No spelling, grammar or typographical errors found during the review
  7. Objectivity (weight 7%) Top of page | Previous Item: 6 | Next Item: 8
    1. Strongly biased, information content not separated from advertising or opinion content
    2. Strongly biased, information content hardly distinguishable from advertising or opinion content
    3. Some biases, information content clearly separated from advertising or opinion content
    4. Minor biases, information content clearly separated from advertising or opinion content
    5. Objective, information content clearly separated from advertising or opinion content
  8. Appropriateness (weight 7%) Top of page | Previous Item: 7 | Next Item: 9
    1. Not appropriated to the stated purpose/audience
    2. Not entirely appropriated to the stated purpose/audience
    3. Average appropriateness, some elements are off-tone
    4. Appropriated, good terminology, correspond to most user's expectations
    5. Appropriated, flawless terminology, above average familiarity. User expectations fulfilled
  9. External Resources (weight 5%) Top of page | Previous Item: 8 | Next Item: 10
    1. No categorization and/or organization, scattered, numerous broken links
    2. Broad categorization, weak organization and consistency, some broken links
    3. Broad categorization, selective, less than 2% of broken links found during the review
    4. Good categorization, selected and annotated. Relevant to the stated purpose. Less than 2% of broken links found during the review
    5. Excellent categorization, selected and annotated. Relevant to the stated purpose. No broken links found during the review
  10. Interactivity (weight 5%) Top of page | Previous Item: 9 | Next Item: 11
    1. No interactive tools
    2. Some interactive elements (e.g. pools)
    3. Average interactivity (e.g. pools, guestbooks, feedback forms)or tutorials on relevant subjects
    4. Above average interactivity (e.g. third-party chat rooms, message boards) or some detailed tutorials or relevant free service provided to visitors
    5. High level of interactivity (e.g. own chat room, message board, newsletters...) or extensive directory of detailed tutorials or relevant free service provided to visitors
  11. Delivery (weight 7%) Top of page | Previous Item: 10 | Next Item: 12
    1. Not usable, not appropriated
    2. Weak usability, non-current plugins or applications are required
    3. Average usability, good organization, appropriate, standard requirements
    4. Above average usability, excellent organization, standard requirements
    5. Outstanding usability, access to search tools, excellent organization, standard requirements
  12. Originality (weight 14%) Top of page | Previous Item: 11 | Next Item: 13
    1. No original material
    2. Some original material (less than 20%)
    3. About 50% of original material
    4. At least 75% of original material
    5. More than 85% of original material
  13. Maintenance (weight 5%) Top of page | Previous Item: 12 | Next Item: 14
    1. No last revision date or more than 6 months since last revision
    2. No last revision date or more than 3 months since last revision
    3. Stated last revision date and more than 2 months since last revision
    4. Stated last revision date and more than 1 months since last revision
    5. Stated last revision date and less than 1 month since last revision
  14. Additional points (weight 5%) Top of page | Previous Item: 13 | Next Item: Calculation
    1. It has been foreseen the use by visitors with visual and/or motor impairments: 1 point
    2. Own domain name, associated to the site's author or theme (e.g. www.author.net, www.association.org, etc.): 1 point
    3. Web site is rated by a Content Rating organization. ICRA or SafeSurf label is present and reflects accurately the content: 1 point
    4. The site is personal and has no commercial purpose or owned by a not-for-profit or educational institution or association (most NGO will fit in this category): 1 point
    5. There is, at least, a bilingual version of the site, being the English one of the available languages: 1 point (Partial translation or links to on-line translators will not entitle you to collect this bonus)

Calculation of the final score

For each evaluator, the calculated score is the weighed average of the scores attained at each of the above 14 items (possible scores are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Rounding is done to 1 decimal figure, for instance 2.435 is rounded to 2.4

Scores from more than one evaluator will be averaged. Result is rounded to 1 decimal figure.

To be awarded the "High In the Sky Award", the site must attain the minimum average of 4.3. Furthermore, no more than a single item described above may attain a score below 4 (item 14, "Additional points", excluded) and in no case should any item be scored below 3. Please note that item 3 (Content) must score at least 4, since we require a minimum of twenty pages of relevant content, as stated in our General Criteria.

Regarding the "Aracnofilia Web Design Award", a minimum average of 3.6 is required in the Content evaluation. Also, no more than four items can be scored below 4 and in no case should any item be scored below 3.

You can use the Content Self-Test to check your site against this scoring procedure and get a score that will allow you to calculate the chances of passing this evaluation.

If you have any question or doubt about this procedure, please do not hesitate to contact us. Please visit our contact page, where you can find a feedback form and our e-mail addresses.