Skip Navigation, Jump to Content.

Home

About

FAQ

Criteria

Contact

Forum

Privacy Policy

List of Charities

Links

Sample Charity

Press

Content Ratings

Site Map

Other awards:

Descriptions of all graphics

Webreleaf

This one-click charity is approved and has a grade of C.

Date of Review: April 12, 2001

Pertinent data for this site:

• Owned by: American Forests, but operated by Environmental News Network (ENN)
• Owner profit type: Non-Profit
• URL: www.webreleaf.com
• Donations go to:
  • American Forests
• Percentage of revenue that goes to the beneficiary: not stated
• Geographic limitations: mostly US, although beneficiary's program does extend to other countries
• Language(s): English
• Calendar day for this site starts at: not stated

Jump to the summary of what this site should do to improve

Criteria that have been met will have a checkmark graphic, and criteria that have not been met will have an X-mark graphic, as shown below. Further details will be listed below each criteria specifying what elements resulted in the checkmark or X-mark.

How this site scored on the criteria (version 1.00):

Critical Criteria

1. I have confirmed that the beneficiaries are getting the money owed them as follows:
   • The site is owned by its sole beneficiary, American Forests. This was confirmed to me in email by Scott Weidner from the organization's Development Department. Obviously since they own the site, they're getting the money. As stated on my About page, I do not review beneficiaries. Users who wish to determine the validity of American Forests will have to peruse the organization's site on their own, or see my list of links for links to groups that do review and rate charities.
2. Contact data for the one-click company/individual is displayed on the site as follows:
   • Email or Form Mail (required): shown on Webreleaf's About page
   • Phone number (strongly recommended): not shown on Webreleaf.
   • Postal address (strongly recommended): not shown on Webreleaf.
   • Both American Forests and ENN have full contact information on their own sites. I strongly urge the administrators to decide which of these organizations should be contacted by phone or mail in regards to Webreleaf, and then post that data on Webreleaf itself.
3. There is a clear description of who gets the money, as follows:
   • The Thank You page says, "Thank-you for planting a Global ReLeaf tree with American Forests."
   • The American Forests banner appears at the bottom of the main page, and most other pages.
   • Although the beneficiary is stated, I wasn't 100% clear whether or not American Forests was the only beneficiary, or whether ENN also received funds from the site. I had to email both groups in order to clarify this. The About Us page does say, "The site was developed by ENN, the Environmental News Network and American Forests." But that doesn't tell users who owns it, who operates it, and who gets the money. I strongly urge the site administrators to fully explain the relationship between ENN and American Forests, and make it clear who operates the site, who gets the money, etc. I am giving Webreleaf a grace period until the next review to clarify this on the site, but if it is not, I will consider this to be a failure of providing a "clear description of who gets the money," and I will downgrade this point. As this is a critical criterion, it will mean an automatic "Not Recommended" status.
4. There is clear indication that the site is still operating (as of the date of this review) as follows:
   • The owner and beneficiary, American Forests, claims the site is operational, both in email to me and by linking to Webreleaf.
   • The only indication of currency on the site itself is the "Breaking News" from ENN on the Thank You page, which is current to the day of the review, but is run by a script pulling something from off-site. This means Webreleaf could, in theory, be abandoned, but would still have current news printed.
   • There is no updated donation totals page, although the Thank You page does list how many trees have been planted.
   • The site administrators must do more to make it clear that the page is still running. A daily total page would be a good start, as would dates somewhere on the pages to indicate the last time they were updated. The Sponsorship page should also have dates indicating when those sponsors were current. Again, I'm giving Webreleaf a grace period until the next review to make it very clear that the site is operating. At the moment, the knowledge that it is operating comes only from confirmation with the beneficiary and administrator.
5. The site does not require users to visit another site, nor perform any activity other than clicking on a donate button/graphic for a donation to count.
6. The site counts donations regardless of user input or registration.

Important Criteria

1. There is no apparent conflict of interest.
2. All possible ulterior motives (such as religious affiliation, being part of another organization, being part of a marketing campaign from some corporate entity, etc.) are listed as follows:
   • Ownership by the beneficiary is implied, though not 100% clear. This should be improved, as noted above.
   • Maintenance by ENN is implied, though it is not 100% clear that that is all ENN does. This should be improved, as noted above.
3. The site has up-to-date information throughout, as follows:
   • Facts about forest fires and related information appear randomly at the bottom of most pages. This data mostly applies to 2000, which is as current as could reasonably be expected in terms of yearly totals.
   • The Thank You page features links to "Breaking News" from ENN, although the news itself is not on Webreleaf's site.
   • The random facts should also be gathered somewhere on a page where users can read all of them at once. Also, as mentioned above, the administrators should include donation totals and other elements that would improve the currency of the site as a whole.
4. The site has a good frequently asked questions (FAQ) area.
   • No FAQ is present. There is an insufficient amount of information on the About page and the How Can I Help? page. For example, there is no mention of whether or not multiple clicks work, when the calendar day starts if only one click counts per day, etc.
5. The money is not just being collected for the future; it is in use now.
6. The site specifies how much each sponsor pays per click as follows:
   • This site doesn't work quite like most other one-click donation sites; instead of having multiple sponsors, it relies on one sponsor at a time. All clicks during that advertiser's period of sponsorship result in an eventual total donation from the advertiser. Webreleaf's home page says, "...every 20 clicks plants a tree..." as an indication of how much each click is worth.
   • There is a possible contradiction to the declaration that 20 clicks plants a tree, since a test later in this review revealed that a single click increased the amount of trees planted, according to the Thank You page. It is possible that 20 clicks happened during the course of that test, although this is unlikely. The site administrators should make the amount that each click brings more clear, and rectify this potential conflict.
7. There is a clear privacy policy.
   • There is no privacy policy at all, nor any indication of privacy matters on the other pages. This includes the "Tell a Friend" feature, which at no time states whether or not the inputted email addresses will be collected, saved, etc. Webreleaf should rectify this immediately, and strongly consider a full privacy policy for the site as well.

Useful Criteria

1. The site is accessible to the disabled or to slow computers as follows:
   • Bobby test results (for the main page only):

     This page does not meet the requirements for Bobby Approved status. Below is a list of 3 Priority 1 accessibility errors found:

     • Provide alternative text for all image map hot-spots (AREAs). (6 instances) Line 30, Line 31, Line 32, Line 33, Line 34, Line 35
     • Give each frame a title. (1 instance) Line 88
     • Provide alternative text for all images. (36 instances) Line 49, Line 57, Line 89, Line 106, Line 110, Line 121, Line 127, Line 136, Line 139, Line 143, Line 152, Line 154, Line 168, Line 170, Line 172, Line 177, Line 179, Line 181, Line 183, Line 185, Line 187, Line 189, Line 198, Line 202, Line 208, Line 212, Line 214, Line 216, Line 218, Line 220, Line 229, Line 256

     User checks are triggered by something specific on the page; however, you need to determine whether they apply. Bobby Approval requires that none of them apply to your page. Please review these 6 item(s):

     • If you use color to convey information, make sure the information is also represented another way.
     • If this is a data table (not used for layout only), identify headers for the table rows and columns. (2 instances) Line 104, Line 196
     • If an image conveys important information beyond what is in its alternative text, provide an extended description. (34 instances) Line 49, Line 57, Line 66, Line 89, Line 100, Line 136, Line 139, Line 141, Line 143, Line 152, Line 154, Line 168, Line 170, Line 172, Line 177, Line 179, Line 181, Line 183, Line 185, Line 187, Line 189, Line 198, Line 202, Line 208, Line 214, Line 216, Line 218, Line 220, Line 229, Line 256
     • If style sheets are ignored or unsupported, are pages still readable and usable?
     • If a table has two or more rows or columns that serve as headers, use structural markup to identify their hierarchy and relationship. (22 instances) Line 47, Line 55, Line 64, Line 76, Line 85, Line 44, Line 98, Line 104, Line 119, Line 137, Line 134, Line 130, Line 158, Line 165, Line 175, Line 196, Line 193, Line 227, Line 236, Line 125, Line 115, Line 39
     • Provide alternative content for each SCRIPT that conveys important information or functionality.

     This site doesn't pass anyway, and several of the user checks would also yield a failure. Most notably, the absence of ALTs and other ways to get the information if graphics and/or scripts are not shown means this site is excluding a significant number of people who are disabled or using old computers/browsers.
   • Standard elements such as ALT tags are missing in most cases
   • Site does not look reasonable in Lynx
2. This site has good navigability as follows:
   • navigation information on every page (strongly recommended), but it is an image map without ALTs, so it cannot be used without displaying graphics.
   • navigation within the site doesn't seem to require javascript, frames, etc. without an alternative, but you must have scripts running to see the "Breaking News" listed on the Thank You page, and subsequently connect to it
   • all links do go where the user will assume they're going
   • URLs are short and logical
3. The site is aesthetically pleasing and uncomplicated, as follows:
   • The site is too complicated with unnecessary javatoys that don't have alternatives for people who have scripts turned off for security reasons, or browsers that don't support them. Javascript is used to pop up the postcard pictures for closer examination, and javascript is also required to see the "Breaking News" on the Thank You page. Since this news is the only real confirmation that the page has not been abandoned, this is a problem.
   • Few animated gifs other than the ads.
   • Good colour scheme.
   • Pictures used are selected with taste and tact.
4. The site does not promote, inadvertently or otherwise, poor behaviour such as spam.
   • With no privacy policy, the site could easily use its "Tell A Friend" feature to collect email addresses. These addresses could then be used by ENN or American Forests to send out unsolicited mail regarding the site, or they could be sold to advertisers and end up being used for spam. I'm not saying Webreleaf is doing this, but without a statement otherwise, the possibility is open.
   • Furthermore, nowhere on the site does Webreleaf discourage the use of the "Tell A Friend" feature to spam people, even in the good intention of spreading word about the site. The administrators should provide a paragraph requesting that people only send postcards to people they know, and even then not to so many people that it could be considered an unsolicited bulk email. Such activities could hurt the site's cause instead of helping, as spam victims direct their anger towards Webreleaf, and not necessarily the person who sent the postcard.
5. Cookies are not required for donations to count.
   • I had my husband try using the page, because his browser at work is set to issue cookie warnings and has a different IP, so it wouldn't think I was donating multiple times (which appears not to work). I had him try clicking to donate and then deny any cookie requests. The donation seems to have counted, as the total of trees planted increased by one from the statistic I had on an refreshed page immediately before this test. However, this seems to contradict the home page's assertion that it takes 20 clicks to plant a tree.
   • I tried clicking from within a Lynx account, and denied cookies. The total number of trees planted increased by one compared to the browser window I had open moments before. This also seems to contradict the home page's assertion that it takes 20 clicks to plant a tree.
   • The administrators need to make it clear whether or not cookies are required for donations to count. It appears as though they don't, but clarification would be a good idea.
6. If the money collected is only going to one country or smaller geographical division, this is noted as follows:
   • At the moment, the money is going to The Global Releaf Program, which does most of its work in the US, but also claims to work in 21 other countries. So long as part of the money is going elsewhere in the world, Webreleaf does not need to make any geographic distinction (although it couldn't hurt to clarify the current project and list the countries of operation). However, if the money is later redirected to another part of American Forests and is thus being used in the US only, Webreleaf should declare this on their main page.
7. There is detailed information about why the money is needed, as follows:
   • Links to various American Forests pages with additional information are present.
   • Random facts are displayed on most of Webreleaf's pages, but these should also be collated onto one page so users can read the entire list.

Considerations outside of criteria

The fact that this site is owned by its beneficiary gives it an obvious level of legitimacy over typical sites, where the owner must be trusted to pass the money on. Also, the site has just undergone a redesign after an initial pilot phase. Those two facts prompted me to be somewhat generous with the critical criteria, since the money isn't in question, but much stricter with the other criteria in balance.

Webreleaf's redesign has made it a more complicated site. I didn't closely examine the old site for ALT tags, but I do know it had less in the way of javatoys, etc. A massive redesign gives web authors the chance to improve their content as well as display, but Webreleaf is missing key information and the display has likely become less disabled friendly.

So some of the critical items that were satisfied but very unclear were given a grace period until the next review in order to allow the site to pass. By being very strict on the remaining criteria, however, the grade is very low.

Summary of what this site should do to improve

The biggest problem with Webreleaf is a lack of clear information. The following items need to be included/improved in order to achieve a higher grade:

• Missing Information
  • Percentage of revenue that goes to American Forests (i.e. does ENN take a hosting/admin fee out of the click revenue?)
  • Whether or not multiple clicks per day count, and if not, when the calendar day starts
  • Phone number and postal address
  • Daily/weekly/monthly donation totals, or other clear indication of the site still being in operation
  • A FAQ to contain much of this information in one coherent format
  • A privacy policy, in particular where email addresses are entered
  • ALT tags are missing on most graphics, worst of all on the navigation bar
  • A communications policy regarding people who may misguidedly spam others to promote the site
• Unclear Information
  • Ownership by American Forests is not clearly stated
  • Relationship between American Forests and ENN not clearly stated
  • Which sponsor was active for what dates in the past
  • Clear indication of what each click is worth, including fixing apparent contradiction to the totals shown on the Thank You page
  • Cookies probably aren't required, but this should be stated clearly in a FAQ and/or privacy policy.
  • Geographical indications should be made clear, and kept current

The information could also be improved by collating all of the randomized facts into an additional page, where users could read them all at once.

Webreleaf should also strive to provide a more universally friendly page, which includes ALT tags on all graphics, an alternative to image maps for navigation, alternatives to all javascripts, or if all of this is impossible, a text-only version of the page. This would open Webreleaf to a wider audience that includes people using software for the blind, people with slow connections and/or old computers, people using non-graphical systems who use Lynx to navigate, and people who keep javascript turned off for security purposes.

Review History:

• Original Review
  • Date: April 12
  • Grade: C
  • Problems:
    • Not disabled/text friendly.
    • Randomly shown facts should also appear collated on one page
    • Information problems:
      • Missing Information
        • Percentage of revenue that goes to American Forests (i.e. does ENN take a hosting/admin fee out of the click revenue?)
        • Whether or not multiple clicks per day count, and if not, when the calendar day starts
        • Phone number and postal address
        • Daily/weekly/monthly donation totals, or other clear indication of the site still being in operation
        • A FAQ to contain much of this information in one coherent format
        • A privacy policy, in particular where email addresses are entered
        • ALT tags are missing on most graphics, worst of all on the navigation bar
        • A communications policy regarding people who may misguidedly spam others to promote the site
      • Unclear Information
        • Ownership by American Forests is not clearly stated
        • Relationship between American Forests and ENN not clearly stated
        • Which sponsor was active for what dates in the past
        • Clear indication of what each click is worth, including fixing apparent contradiction to the totals shown on the Thank You page
        • Cookies probably aren't required, but this should be stated clearly in a FAQ and/or privacy policy.
        • Geographical indications should be made clear, and kept current