In some 12 years of being the About Geology Guide, I've spent over 6,000 hours actively evaluating sites on the Web. I'd say that amounts to a good 30,000 different sites. The set of categories you see on the bottom of every page have about 700 items, or less than 3 percent of that total.
Seven Smart Criteria
What is it about these 3-percent sites? They meet seven criteria: they're smart, relevant, live, accountable, solid, discriminating, and original.
Smart sites know what you're looking for, and they provide it easily with a minimum of clicking and waiting. The Southern California Earthquake Center is a smart site.
Relevant sites focus on some part of Earth science. A place like the Space Physics & Aeronomy Research Collaboratory has material about geophysical subjects, but it's mostly outside my limits. Or gem dealers' sites—I leave them alone unless they have a good section on mineralogy.
Live sites stay fresh—someone's there. Links don't go bad, content is updated, design flaws don't fester for years. The old "Earth Science Site of the Week" site had all those flaws yet lingered just the same on everybody's lists—but not mine. On the other hand, I list some very old pages that were well made to begin with.
Accountable sites play by the rules. They acknowledge the sources of their images and information. They don't copy other people's work. One bad example is platetectonics.com, whose "research archives" reproduce a bunch of old newspaper and magazine articles without permission. Finally, they are not anonymous—if they can't stand by their content under a human being's name, as I do, I won't list them.
Solid sites are error-free and clearly written. Many sites fall short. Platetectonics.com's "book" on plate tectonics is written in proper sentences but riddled with wrong facts; college course notes have good information but are crude outlines not meant to be read. Solid sites are also deep: you get all you wanted to know, plus more. Astronaut Harrison Schmitt's Field Trip to the Moon is a standout example.
Discriminating sites don't list every little thing or cover every topic. For instance, Fossil Collections of the World may look impressive, but it's hard to use and must be exhausting to maintain, since its author gave up in 1997. Something like the Dinosaur Trackers page covers a limited topic thoroughly.
Original sites come from people who write with authority about what they know personally. These are the real gems of the Web. Sites by passionate amateurs, dedicated researchers (like Rob's Granite Page), or specialist institutions (like the Atmospheric Electricity Newsletter) are what I like.
If you want more good examples, just browse through those categories.
