![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 17 of 17. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by jb on March 12, 2001, at 8:19:38
Just a thought, and I'm sure one that you've previously considered:
Would it make sense to provide separate categories for PsychoBabble? I sometimes find it difficult in running through the various posts to find something specifically regarding SP. In some posts, it's not obvious what is the condition; you have to look through the detail of the message by clicking through.Anyway, separate categories such as depression, social phobia, bi-polar disorder, etc., and maybe another category for the less frequent posts may make it easier for those looking to keep up-to-date on others' experiences as well as to try to provide
helpful feedback.Thanks.
JB
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 20, 2001, at 0:19:47
In reply to Dividing PsychoBabble Into Categories, posted by jb on March 12, 2001, at 8:19:38
> separate categories such as depression, social phobia, bi-polar disorder, etc., and maybe another category for the less frequent posts may make it easier for those looking to keep up-to-date on others' experiences as well as to try to provide helpful feedback.
I have in fact been wondering about dividing it again. But for some reason it doesn't seem so broke right now... In any case, one thing with doing it based on diagnosis is that some drugs are used for more than one diagnosis, so there might be a lot of overlap.
One idea, however, would be to separate out antidepressants, the most-discussed type of drug... Or something else to try might be to separate out drugs not available in the US...
Well, let me know what you think,
Bob
Posted by Lorraine on March 20, 2001, at 9:14:38
In reply to Re: Dividing PsychoBabble Into Categories, posted by Dr. Bob on March 20, 2001, at 0:19:47
Bob: I think all these divisions are problematic because of overlapping categories--like you pointed out with drugs. Many drugs for bi-polar are used for unipolar, anti-psychotic etc. The same with in and out of country drugs because of combos. I think the board is primarily for drug info; so divisions based on things other than the drug being used won't work. Individual drugs categories won't work because of combo--or you would need to double or triple file some messages. I suppose you could try solos and combos. I don't know how useful that would be. Or maybe solos for the major drugs like Effexor, Paxel and then a basket for the remainder. Maybe that way newbies would be directed to previous posts on their topics. It might be nice to organize some of the elementary info, weight gain, sexual side effects, what can I expect Paxil, etc. I know you have a scheme for this. It might be nice to integrate that info into the message board somehow to stop the reiterative answering of "asked and answered" questions.
Posted by JahL on March 21, 2001, at 14:57:17
In reply to Re: Dividing PsychoBabble Into Categories, posted by Dr. Bob on March 20, 2001, at 0:19:47
> > separate categories such as depression, social phobia, bi-polar disorder, etc., and maybe another category for the less frequent posts may make it easier for those looking to keep up-to-date on others' experiences as well as to try to provide helpful feedback.
>
> I have in fact been wondering about dividing it again. But for some reason it doesn't seem so broke right now... In any case, one thing with doing it based on diagnosis is that some drugs are used for more than one diagnosis, so there might be a lot of overlap.
>
> One idea, however, would be to separate out antidepressants, the most-discussed type of drug... Or something else to try might be to separate out drugs not available in the US...
>
> Well, let me know what you think,
>
> BobI would leave well alone. Most people on this board seem to have multiple dxs & take multiple meds. Separation could lead to over-simplification & a decrease in the current 'cross-pollination' of info that occurs here (ie someone with depression can learn about the potential viability of say, antipsychotics or AEDs).
Posted by Noa on March 22, 2001, at 17:24:59
In reply to Re: Dividing PsychoBabble Into Categories, posted by JahL on March 21, 2001, at 14:57:17
I also wouldn't want to promote the conventional way of defining the medications because they are effective with different diagnoses, even if they are called specific "anti"s. I think this is one of the most important things I learned at PB.
Posted by ShelliR on March 24, 2001, at 21:13:46
In reply to Re: Dividing PsychoBabble Into Categories, posted by JahL on March 21, 2001, at 14:57:17
> I would leave well alone. Most people on this board seem to have multiple dxs & take multiple meds. Separation could lead to over-simplification & a decrease in the current 'cross-pollination' of info that occurs here (ie someone with depression can learn about the potential viability of say, antipsychotics or AEDs).
Posted by jb on March 29, 2001, at 1:02:48
In reply to Re: Dividing PsychoBabble Into Categories, posted by Dr. Bob on March 20, 2001, at 0:19:47
I thought this might get everyone's attention. By augmentation therapy, not to be confused with combination therapy, I'm refering to the PsychoBabble search engine playing an "augmentation" role in providing capability for "categorization" for those who desire such. And, I certainly wouldn't suggest doing anything to lose the cross-polinization of ideas which others may find beneficial. So, I think the existing search engine helps solve the problem for those who want a more focused set of posts. Looks like we can have our cake and eat it, too. Now I'm hungry, so must go.
Oh, by the way, I guess either the search engine feature is relatively new, or I've just been missing it. I usually don't scroll down the page beyond the last post, which is what I need to do to see the search box. Hmmm . . . I wonder if others may have missed this or are otherwise unaware of this opportunity to focus their search.
Thanks for the discussion and for sharing your well-considered responses.
JB
Posted by dougb on April 24, 2001, at 11:45:11
In reply to Re: Dividing PsychoBabble Into Categories, posted by Lorraine on March 20, 2001, at 9:14:38
> Bob: I think all these divisions are problematic because of overlapping categories
Due to the sheer volume of traffic usefull threads are swept out of site very quickly.
If, however, you maintain primary input the way it is now, but underneath your 'follow-up' box (the one this message is being composed in right now) you provide the author with checkboxes:
"What category(ies) - (max-2/X)should this thread/(?)message be filed under for future reference?"
This would take nothing away from the current system, would only add a single character field to your message database, and might be quite useful.
Doug B
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 30, 2001, at 20:05:33
In reply to Re: How about filters?, posted by dougb on April 24, 2001, at 11:45:11
> Due to the sheer volume of traffic usefull threads are swept out of site very quickly.
Well, that was the idea behind Psycho-Babble Tips:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/psycho-babble-tips/links
> "What category(ies) - (max-2/X)should this thread/(?)message be filed under for future reference?"
>
> This would take nothing away from the current system, would only add a single character field to your message database, and might be quite useful.Because it would help with searching?
It wouldn't address the "useful" post issue. I suppose options there might include specific page access statistics or even ratings by members...
Bob
Posted by dougb on May 2, 2001, at 13:34:32
In reply to Re: How about filters?, posted by Dr. Bob on April 30, 2001, at 20:05:33
> > Due to the sheer volume of traffic usefull threads are swept out of site very quickly.
>
> Well, that was the idea behind Psycho-Babble Tips:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/psycho-babble-tips/links
--Had not seen that yet, what are the mechanics though, do you have to 'manually' move threads over, and if so, is that tedious?Am assuming that might be the case as few of these threads-for-posterity.
> > "What category(ies) - (max-2/X)should this thread/(?)message be filed under for future reference?"
> >
> > This would take nothing away from the current system, would only add a single character field to your message database, and might be quite useful.
>
> Because it would help with searching?
my thought had been; it would be an easy way to create many mini-forums, allowing one to read what has been said about just those threads about TR/Effexor/Withdrawl/Misc Rants/ETC, then when one clicks searches on that Category a digest-like summary with just the unique subject lines would come up, clicking on same would open the thread.Is it clear?
>
> It wouldn't address the "useful" post issue. I suppose options there might include specific page access statistics or even ratings by members...
That's a great idea that would let one read just a certain level and above.See www.slashdot.org, for an effective implementation of something like that.
On that board there is a certain amount of 'waddya mean, my comment only rated a 1?' kind of thing, but over there it is minor.
In the Babble context however, you are dealing with many whose self-esteem may be traumatized by a rating system, i don't know, what do you think?
Doug B
>
> Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 2, 2001, at 23:54:20
In reply to Re: How about filters? » Dr. Bob, posted by dougb on May 2, 2001, at 13:34:32
> > Well, that was the idea behind Psycho-Babble Tips...
>
> --Had not seen that yet, what are the mechanics though, do you have to 'manually' move threads over, and if so, is that tedious?It may in fact be a little tedious.. Maybe ask someone who's actually done one? :-)
> my thought had been; it would be an easy way to create many mini-forums, allowing one to read what has been said about just those threads about TR/Effexor/Withdrawl/Misc Rants/ETC
My concern about keywords is that they might not be used very consistently and therefore might not add that much to what's already available now...
> In the Babble context however, you are dealing with many whose self-esteem may be traumatized by a rating system, i don't know, what do you think?
Hmm, you have a point there, I don't know, either...
Bob
Posted by kiddo on May 3, 2001, at 11:08:09
In reply to Re: Dividing PsychoBabble Into Categories, posted by Dr. Bob on March 20, 2001, at 0:19:47
> > separate categories such as depression, social phobia, bi-polar disorder, etc., and maybe another category for the less frequent posts may make it easier for those looking to keep up-to-date on others' experiences as well as to try to provide helpful feedback.
Why not make 'suburbs' to the city? Instead of just one for medications or whatever, divide it into something like this:
Psychobabble
GAD, etc
Anxiety meds
Xanax
Trifluoperazine
General Questions
etc.Depression, etc
Depression meds
ZoloftSide Effects
Or an FAQ of a different sort, where someone scans the messages, compiles a list of the FAQ's and posts them separately(sp)? Or just list the various types of psych meds, and have a different category for those that aren't but subscribed. It would be easier to search for a drug name (either chem or brand).
> I have in fact been wondering about dividing it again. But for some reason it doesn't seem so broke right now... In any case, one thing with doing it based on diagnosis is that some drugs are used for more than one diagnosis, so there might be a lot of overlap.
In that case, you could have a list of each drug name, and have posts directed that way.
> One idea, however, would be to separate out antidepressants, the most-discussed type of drug... Or something else to try might be to separate out drugs not available in the US...
>
> Well, let me know what you think,
>
> Bob
That's what I think, FWIWKiddo
Posted by dougb on May 3, 2001, at 19:06:55
In reply to Re: How about filters?, posted by Dr. Bob on May 2, 2001, at 23:54:20
> --Had not seen that yet, what are the mechanics though, do you have to 'manually' move threads over, and if so, is that tedious?
It may in fact be a little tedious.. Maybe ask someone who's actually done one? :-)
LOL, funny doc, very funny> My concern about keywords is that they might not be used very consistently and therefore might not add that much to what's already available now...
--Guess you're right, you would probably need a propeller on your beanie and 3 tutorials to appreaciate the alternative.If you beef up your search engine a little..
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 4, 2001, at 18:50:33
In reply to Re: How about filters?, posted by dougb on May 3, 2001, at 19:06:55
> If you beef up your search engine a little..
Such as how?
Bob
Posted by dougb on May 6, 2001, at 16:44:36
In reply to Re: How about filters?, posted by Dr. Bob on May 4, 2001, at 18:50:33
> > If you beef up your search engine a little..
>
> Such as how?
>
Run a link from the advanced search at Google.com, or one of the other engines that offer internal search capabilities to a sightDoug
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 12, 2001, at 1:04:43
In reply to Re: How about filters?, posted by dougb on May 6, 2001, at 16:44:36
> > > If you beef up your search engine a little..
> >
> > Such as how?
>
> Run a link from the advanced search at Google.com, or one of the other engines that offer internal search capabilities to a sightIf you mean Google's SiteSearch service, the problem with the free option is that full indexing isn't guaranteed and it might include ads...
http://www.google.com/services/site_compare.html
Bob
Posted by AMenz on June 16, 2001, at 0:01:50
In reply to Re: Dividing PsychoBabble Into Categories, posted by Dr. Bob on March 20, 2001, at 0:19:47
Re dividing into categories by type of drug. Please note that posters regarding AD's do not state whether they are unipolar or bipolar. This is significant because if a unipolar has a great experience with an AD it doesn't necessarily mean a bipolar will, too. BP's I and II may not know of the activating effects of AD's. Obviously from reading some of the posts, neither do their psychiatrists.
It would be an important contribution to have diagnostic categories made clear. Well, that's my two cents. I enjoy the forum tremendously. Congratulations for running it so well.
> > separate categories such as depression, social phobia, bi-polar disorder, etc., and maybe another category for the less frequent posts may make it easier for those looking to keep up-to-date on others' experiences as well as to try to provide helpful feedback.
>
> I have in fact been wondering about dividing it again. But for some reason it doesn't seem so broke right now... In any case, one thing with doing it based on diagnosis is that some drugs are used for more than one diagnosis, so there might be a lot of overlap.
>
> One idea, however, would be to separate out antidepressants, the most-discussed type of drug... Or something else to try might be to separate out drugs not available in the US...
>
> Well, let me know what you think,
>
> Bob
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.