![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 15 of 15. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by BrittPark on December 27, 2002, at 19:33:03
There has been one person posting on PB recently who makes quite specific, authorative, and often wrong recommendations. He or she is not the first to behave this way. I suppose it's a pipe dream but perhaps there could be a way to attach a qualification estimation for each poster. One way would be via a "How do you rate this post?" form that one could fill out for any post. This kind of system sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. But I do worry about relatively naive Babblers who cannot tell the difference between those who know what they are posting about and those who don't.
Just a thought,
Britt
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 27, 2002, at 21:21:14
In reply to Poster qualifications. Dr. Bob, posted by BrittPark on December 27, 2002, at 19:33:03
> There has been one person posting on PB recently who makes quite specific, authorative, and often wrong recommendations. He or she is not the first to behave this way. I suppose it's a pipe dream but perhaps there could be a way to attach a qualification estimation for each poster. One way would be via a "How do you rate this post?" form that one could fill out for any post. This kind of system sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. But I do worry about relatively naive Babblers who cannot tell the difference between those who know what they are posting about and those who don't.
Thanks for your post, this has in fact come up before. I think of it as one of the downsides of free speech, and it's a concern of mine, too.
I've also wondered about some sort of rating system, but (1) people might not bother to submit ratings, (2) some of the raters would be "naive", too (though I suppose in theory the ratings they give could be weighted by the ratings they receive...), (3) some posters wouldn't like being rated, and of course (4) there would be lots of technical issues.
I know it can be a lot of work, but IMO the best way to fight bad information is with good information.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on December 27, 2002, at 21:27:41
In reply to Re: Poster ratings, posted by Dr. Bob on December 27, 2002, at 21:21:14
I'm surprised you've given it serious thought, Dr. Bob, since you have always been in favor of this site being supportive. I can't imagine many less supportive things than being given a rating of "full of bull" or "not reliable" or something by your peers.
Surely it's better to just point out errors in fact without drawing conclusions about the poster of the erroneous facts.
Posted by BrittPark on December 27, 2002, at 23:14:14
In reply to Re: Poster ratings » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on December 27, 2002, at 21:27:41
I freely admit that the idea of ratings has some serious problems. They could quite possibly make many people feel less supported. I don't know. The other side of the coin is that there are many desparing people on PB, who are getting bad advice from people who don't know what they are talking about.
In all honesty, I don't know whether ratings would do more harm than good. I can tell well informed advice from drivel, (at least when I'm not severely depressed), but I have a PhD in biology and follow the Psychopharmacological literature. I'm not suggesting that one needs a PhD to tell good from bad advice, but I do think there are probably a lot of people on PB who can't.I think the idea of ratings is worth at least discussing.
Cheers,
Britt
P.S. The reason the idea of ratings occured to me was that most of my posts seem to be corrections to erroneous information. I'm left wondering whom people end up believing. I don't claim to be a fount of all knowledge but I am fairly well informed and do take care not to say anything I can't verify in the literature.
Posted by IsoM on December 27, 2002, at 23:58:11
In reply to Re: Poster ratings » Dinah, posted by BrittPark on December 27, 2002, at 23:14:14
BrittPark, ratings can be so abused. I've seen sites that used ratings & when someone felt vindictive toward another, they would give this person the lowest rating possible. They could also get friends to rate this person so any top ratings from others would be effectively cancelled. Other times, when an answer had no ratings, some readers thought it was worse than the lowest rating. Not all people reading the forums understood what the ratings meant. Time & again, ratings have caused more problems than solved.
As for informed answers, & who believes what -that's what most of life is like. Those who truly desire to find accurate info will double check to be certain. Those who are gullible will often believe what they want to hear, sadly. Sometimes when a person is presented with two conflicting sets of information, what's accepted & believed is what that person *wants* to believe whether it's true or not.
I've seen when someone's answer was grossly inaccurate, other posters soon corrected it. On the whole, the people that use these forums are pretty well informed. There's a number of biologists, a toxicologist, a few doctors, & quite a few other well educated, knowledgable people here. And they're generally quick to correct mistakes.
Posted by Mitchell on December 28, 2002, at 19:31:17
In reply to Re: less than factual info and ratings » BrittPark, posted by IsoM on December 27, 2002, at 23:58:11
Flesch reading ease: 50.5
Flesch-Kincaid readability grade level: 9.5Chapter one of a freshman statistics book says a poll of secret answers from an open population is among the least reliable data sets. The text describes such data sets among those used to mislead with statistics.
User polls are a flawed way to test medical knowledge. Doctors don't learn from polls, they learn from medical schools. In a pharmaceutical self-help group, user polls promote greater reliance on unreliable data. User polls to qualify medical advice encourage peer pressure in medical decisions.
Before Microsoft Word edit:
Flesch reading ease: 25.6
Flesch-Kincaid readability grade level: 12
The first chapter of a freshman level statistics book says anonymous voluntary samples submitted by an open undefined population are among the least reliable data sets. The text describes such data sets among those used to mislead by statistical fallacy.Promoting user polls as a way of testing medical information puts in place a mechanism for flawed reality testing. User polls, if offered as a means of reality testing in a pharmaceutical self-help community, promote greater reliance on unreliable data and peer pressure medical decision making.
Posted by BrittPark on December 28, 2002, at 21:09:31
In reply to Re: less than factual info and ratings, posted by Mitchell on December 28, 2002, at 19:31:17
From the responses I'm getting I think we can conclude that rating would not be appreciated. However in other areas peer rating works rather well. Take a look at slashdot.org.
Cheers and Suggestion Tabled,
Britt
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 29, 2002, at 16:12:12
In reply to Re: less than factual info and ratings » BrittPark, posted by IsoM on December 27, 2002, at 23:58:11
> I'm surprised you've given it serious thought, Dr. Bob, since you have always been in favor of this site being supportive. I can't imagine many less supportive things than being given a rating of "full of bull" or "not reliable" or something by your peers.
>
> DinahI'm surprised you thought I'd offer a rating like "full of bull". :-)
What if there weren't any negative ratings? And the options were just to give a post a "star" or not?
> I've seen sites that used ratings & when someone felt vindictive toward another, they would give this person the lowest rating possible. They could also get friends to rate this person so any top ratings from others would be effectively cancelled. Other times, when an answer had no ratings, some readers thought it was worse than the lowest rating. Not all people reading the forums understood what the ratings meant. Time & again, ratings have caused more problems than solved.
>
> IsoMWell, I think it would have to be acknowledged that the ratings were a measure of popularity -- which could be due to a whole variety of factors.
Also, one "rating" that's independent of other posters, and that I've seen elsewhere, is the number of times someone's posted. What about that?
> in other areas peer rating works rather well. Take a look at slashdot.org.
>
> BrittParkI took a look, and saw the ratings, but couldn't figure out how to submit one myself. Are you able to only if you register?
Bob
Posted by BrittPark on December 29, 2002, at 16:29:37
In reply to Re: Poster ratings, posted by Dr. Bob on December 29, 2002, at 16:12:12
> I took a look, and saw the ratings, but couldn't figure out how to submit one myself. Are you able to only if you register?
>
> BobYou do need to register to contribute or "mod" an article on slashdot.org. One's effect on the ranking of a post is a function of how well received one's posts have been. It's rather like the system (I don't know where it is now) that asks you to rate a set of albums and then gives you back a list of albums that you might like. The suggestions it makes are based on covariance of people's ratings of different albums.
Again, from the reaction my suggestion has prompted it seems that scoring of posts or posters is unpalatable to Psycho-Babble's constituency.
Cheers,
Britt
Posted by Dinah on December 29, 2002, at 18:21:50
In reply to Re: Poster ratings, posted by Dr. Bob on December 29, 2002, at 16:12:12
> I'm surprised you thought I'd offer a rating like "full of bull". :-)
>Sorry for my lack of faith. :)
Posted by IsoM on December 30, 2002, at 2:36:41
In reply to Re: Poster ratings, posted by Dr. Bob on December 29, 2002, at 16:12:12
Bob: "Also, one "rating" that's independent of other posters, and that I've seen elsewhere, is the number of times someone's posted. What about that?"
Don't think that's a good way to rate a person's answers either. I'm aware of sites that do this but somone posting many answers but with misleading information would get a higher rating than someone with very accurate & helpful info who only posts occasionally.
Posted by Jonathan on December 30, 2002, at 11:19:29
In reply to Rating by number of posts » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on December 30, 2002, at 2:36:41
Bad ...
Posted by Jonathan on December 30, 2002, at 11:20:00
In reply to Re: Rating by number of posts - Part 1, posted by Jonathan on December 30, 2002, at 11:19:29
... idea.
Posted by Jonathan on December 30, 2002, at 11:58:05
In reply to Re: Rating by number of posts - Part 2, posted by Jonathan on December 30, 2002, at 11:20:00
Posted by Noa on January 1, 2003, at 14:25:42
In reply to Re: Rating by number of posts - Part 1, posted by Jonathan on December 30, 2002, at 11:19:29
Drawback: some people are "hyperposters" and this can be totally unrelated to their reliability.
I like the caviat emptor principle best.
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.