Please read the comments for some shades of meaning about the whole question.
JustVolunteers.org is a new volunteering matching site run by NY Corporation Baou, Inc.
It offers what they call “Virtual Opportunity”.
Would I recommend it? nope
Why? Go there and try if you can find anything of your interest.
Error #1: “virtual” is not a category, but a channel. I mean, my profile is not a choose amongst Politics, Environment or Virtual Opportunity. I might be interested in volunteering for the environment even if I wanted to do it virtually.
Thus, this category is a complete mess.
On the other way, error #2, we should start building a consensus on what we call online volunteering. I once draw four types of online volunteering. People usually stand on the first type (Advocacy) while I’d prefer 3rd or 4th (real online volunteering). So, we’ve got a problem here. No matching site will work until we solve, at least, these two big errors or, at least, we make up something to keep everybody within the same framework and discriminate different definitions.
My opinion, of course ;)
If you need to cite this article in a formal way (i.e. for bibliographical purposes) I dare suggest:
Peña-López, I. (2005) “JustVolunteers.org” In ICTlogy,
#18, March 2005. Barcelona: ICTlogy.
Retrieved month dd, yyyy from
https://ictlogy.net/review/?p=234
Previous post: Drupal as Learning Management System
Next post: Online training for development
5 Comments to “JustVolunteers.org” »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBack URI
The category types are determined by our users. JustVolunteers creates different categories if a user requests new categories. We have re-worded categories when asked. We have removed and replaced categories when asked. The author of this comment is obviously not a registered user or does not read our newsletters in which we explain that our service is unlike any other because our users can shape the design and format of our system-software. All they need to do is ask, which the author has not done.
It’s right, I’m not a registered user, but I don’t think I have to read or understand the policy, hierarchy, or the organization underneath a web site to navigate it: this is what usability is all about :)
On the other hand, I didn’t mean to blame anyone but to report a couple of concept errors; and whoever the blame is, the errors are still there. Indeed, and as I said, it is not a matter of categories but of channels, as it is not a matter of categories the country where the volunteering opportunity takes place.
I’m really sorry you got that angry: it was really not my intention.
Perhaps, but you do need to know something about what you’re writing about, before you say or write something that is incorrect. The message: it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt, has particular importance here.
Indeed, there are no errors as you suggest. There are programming intentions and those intentions work perfectly. If you think that the website could be better designed, then I suggest you design on and prove it.
Your comments are incorrect.
Hi Jennifer,
Just by looking at ICTlogy.net, you know I cannot design a website on my own: I have no time, no money and no skills. But I can give user advice on the things I see.
Besides, I think you’re not being fair. When I wrote my post, the geographycal filter read like this “Enter a zip/postcode to focus search or leave blank – Note: Radius search only applies to U.S. & Canadian zip/postcodes.” But after our discussion took place, a new text was added: “Enter ‘Virtual’ for virtual opportunities”.
Now, this is just what I tried to tell when describing error#1. I’m glad you changed this. I’m not happy at all you improved this feature while attacking me. That’s not fair play :(
Error#2 issues where neither a criticism or, at least, an attack to JustVolunteers. Just tried to tell that general users are not familiar with online volunteering philosophy. I tried and did a search on my expertise: Education/Literacy + Virtual. I got three results. None of them is correctly categorized. Your fault? No, I don’t think so, but the question is not whose fault is, but whether the results are valid or not.
Pingback: ICTlogy » FAO: new online education tool kit on agriculture