What websites show hatred for citizens?

Members of the “Pirate Party of Russia” and non-partisan Internet activists have completed the first stage of monitoring of websites. Sites of state bodies are regulated by 8-FZ, which, however, did not include the requirements of mandatory norms that have developed on the network. These requirements, although not mandatory, are perceived by users as disrespect.

I would like to share some results and discuss what criteria should be presented to sites and how to evaluate them.
       
The study was conducted in September-October 2011. The subject of the study was the sites of parliaments and governments of the Russian Federation, as well as the sites of the President and Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, a total of 170 sites. The criteria by which sites were evaluated were objective and easily verifiable even for humanities. 

As it turned out hatred of citizensexhibit a little more than half of 31 state sites. This means the availability of materials +18 (yes, there are such!), The publication of materials in graphic formats, which complicates the mechanical processing of these data, the presence of copyright on the site, the absence of a search on the site and other acts of hatred.

     
Respect for citizens is a set of features that state sites are not required to have, but which would be very useful for citizens. This is a mobile version of the site, a version for the visually impaired, versions of documents for printing and subscription to news via e-mail. Citizens of the government of Omsk ( www.omskportal.ru ), Smolensk region ( admin-smolensk.ru ) and Krasnoyarsk Territory ( www.krskstate.ru ) respect 100% .
   
Manufacturability- this is the presence of an RSS feed, a robots.txt file (due to its absence, data is leaked to the search engines, and it also indicates which pages the search engine must index and in what order), the sitemap in robots.txt, errors in the layout of the main page, errors in CSS code and even the presence of favicon.ico icon.
In Russia, there is completely no technological culture in 14 RF websites.
   
Feedback - the availability of contact e-mail and feedback forms, the ability to comment on the pages of the site. To date, only 5 state websites have comments and only for news - the Legislative Assembly of the Krasnodar Territory ( www.kubzsk.ru ), the Kursk Region Administration ( adm.rkursk.ru ), the parliaments of Volgograd ( volgoduma.ru ), Novosibirsk (zsnso.ru ) and the Kirov ( www.zsko.ru ) regions.
     
Evaluation of the “feedback” criterion did not take into account the ease of detection of the contact email and the feedback form. For example, you can take the site of the administration of the Chuvash Republic, in which the forms of appeal are indented into the site at three levels.
     
Social networks.   Of course, many of you can say that this is not the most important for gossytes, but nevertheless, it is through social networks that we are increasingly getting information. And it should be noted that some websites have already made friends with Internet users, but 67% are not yet integrated into social networks at all.
     
We are especially indignant at the lack of conditions for using the site materials and, especially, the thoughtless use of copyright ©, which should mean that the exclusive rights to information belong to the government, although this is unacceptable by law. It should be noted that of all the sites analyzed, only one authority has a clear description of the conditions of use - the Legislative Assembly of St. Petersburg, as well as the sites of the President and the Prime Minister.
     
Parliaments siteswe assessed using additional criteria that do not so much evaluate the culture of website building as the transparency of the parliaments themselves. So, until direct electronic democracy has come, we, as voters, would like to know how our deputies vote for bills, but, unfortunately, only one parliament in Russia - the Moscow City Duma - discloses this information.
     
15% of the parliaments do not publish any information about the forthcoming legislative activity, and 24% of the parliaments do not publish any information on how to get an appointment with a deputy, to which constituency this or that address belongs. And only 11% of parliaments provide an opportunity to spy on meetings online and in recordings and publish their transcripts.

We also compared the sites of the President andPrime Minister . I wonder who has the coolest site ?! But the result turned out to be expected - the President’s site is better, and not significantly, but only due to greater integration in social networks.

The best sites were: the State Duma of the Russian Federation ( www.duma.gov.ru ), the parliament of the Kirov region ( www.zsko.ru ) and the administration of the Krasnoyarsk Territory ( www.krskstate.ru ).
     
The worst are the governments of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug-Ugra ( www.admhmao.ru ), the state assembly of Mordovia ( www.gsrm.ru ) and the administration of the Chuvash Republic ( www.cap.ru ).

You can read more about the results of the first stage of monitoring at the link

And with you, dear Khabrovsk residents, I would like to discuss the standard that is presented for state websites, not the one that is prescribed in the law, but the standard as etiquette, the rules of good form. Now this standard is described on a pirate wiki. You can leave your suggestions here in the comments or in the wiki itself via the link , editing is available during registration.

Also, if someone wants to join the team or take a direct part in the management of the project for monitoring state websites in the future, note in the comments.