What would a “good” WebMD look like? • Hacker News Board

Re: What would a “good” WebMD look like?

#31

Post by ravenstine » Tue, Aug 30, 2022, 2:06 PM UTC

jjar wrote: post #15

A better question might be: Why is the private sector responsible for providing accurate health information? As this article shows, the incentives for people running medical websites and the people reading them are not aligned. I'd say the UK NHS website and symptoms/medications pages hit the nail on the head - https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/ . It has no advertising and provides short, easily readable and actionable i…

That's a nice page, and I'll definitely bookmark that one. But I don't see most of the public using something like that over WebMD.

WebMD is complete trash (I even block it in my Kagi search preferences), but it succeeds over sites like the NHS one because of blog SEO. WebMD is really a glorified blog with posts about every condition you might get paranoid over. I don't know how precisely they achieve this, but they're doing something right in an SEO sense if The Google continues to put them near the top of results after all these years.

Meanwhile, there are also sites like Merck Manuals, which is both a terrific resource and privately run, but I don't recall ever seeing it coming up for a search query like "what is that bump on the side of my neck."

https://www.merckmanuals.com/

The resources are out there. Whether The Google thinks the average person should read them is a different story. I don't believe The Google is going to ever filter out WebMD, so there must be a middle ground where sites like the ones you and I mentioned find a way to make themselves more WebMD-like without sacrificing their more academically-minded content they already have.

Re: What would a “good” WebMD look like?

#32

Post by Workaccount2 » Tue, Aug 30, 2022, 2:08 PM UTC

FounderBurr wrote: post #22

A much better WebMD would like like Wikipedia. Hint: it’s Wikipedia.

It's annoying that google has been forcefully pushing down wikipedia at least for medically related things. I don't want to have to go to the second page to get an article that isn't scared to use a word longer than 6 letters.

Re: What would a “good” WebMD look like?

#33

Post by ajmurmann » Tue, Aug 30, 2022, 2:08 PM UTC

stevage wrote: post #17

The phenomenon they describe for health information is, IMHO, absolutely rife across many different domains. Try looking up information about gardening, plant management, home improvement, etc - you'll find the same thing. Search results dominated by sites that have mastered the art of producing SEO-optimised "content" that is not authoritative, full of waffle, and not especially helpful. For whatever reason, the bus…

I believe you don't have this problem with stackoverflow because it's user generated content. Answers provided by people doing it out of passion are usually better. That's why you'll often find the best answers on Reddit.

As to why there is no successful medical overflow.com: Software developers are inherently more web-affine and likely to help there. On top of that it's a great way for developers to show their knowledge in a way they can show to prospective employers. The medical field is a lot more old-school sand I cannot imagine a doctor showing their online help history to a potential employer.

Re: What would a “good” WebMD look like?

#34

Post by coldcode » Tue, Aug 30, 2022, 2:08 PM UTC

jjar wrote: post #15

A better question might be: Why is the private sector responsible for providing accurate health information? As this article shows, the incentives for people running medical websites and the people reading them are not aligned. I'd say the UK NHS website and symptoms/medications pages hit the nail on the head - https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/ . It has no advertising and provides short, easily readable and actionable i…

I also prefer information from the NHS even though I live in the US. Here medical information online is all about making money from ads and who knows what else they sell. There is actually little money to make from providing relevant information, unlike a national heath care system (which despite its terrible current state politically in the UK, where it seems they want to move to the US model) has an incentive to provide good information.

Re: What would a “good” WebMD look like?

#35

Post by BurningFrog » Tue, Aug 30, 2022, 2:08 PM UTC

bshep wrote: post #13

BurningFrog wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume medical websites are somehow kept vague in order to steer us to pay these highly regulated professionals a fee for a visit.

I’d say its more likely that they are vague because of regulations and liability. IE you cant/shouldn’t give blanket medical advice and if you do you may be liable if someone has a bad outcome from the advice.

That's my point!

Regulations have been set up so you have to pay an AMA member to get any information that might be labeled "medical advice".

Re: What would a “good” WebMD look like?

#36

Post by _ea1k » Tue, Aug 30, 2022, 2:09 PM UTC

Two words: Revenue optimization

Everything free on the web is optimized to maximize the delivery of advertisements and referrals at the expense of everything else. And Google no longer rewards credible sources vs ad-laden garbage.

Re: What would a “good” WebMD look like?

#37

Post by SilasX » Tue, Aug 30, 2022, 2:09 PM UTC

jjar wrote: post #15

A better question might be: Why is the private sector responsible for providing accurate health information? As this article shows, the incentives for people running medical websites and the people reading them are not aligned. I'd say the UK NHS website and symptoms/medications pages hit the nail on the head - https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/ . It has no advertising and provides short, easily readable and actionable i…

Interesting! But the first link you gave is just a list of conditions, which requires that I already know what my problem is. Is there a page that goes from symptoms to likely causes and what to do, like WebMD?

Re: What would a “good” WebMD look like?

#38

Post by duxup » Tue, Aug 30, 2022, 2:09 PM UTC

stevage wrote: post #17

The phenomenon they describe for health information is, IMHO, absolutely rife across many different domains. Try looking up information about gardening, plant management, home improvement, etc - you'll find the same thing. Search results dominated by sites that have mastered the art of producing SEO-optimised "content" that is not authoritative, full of waffle, and not especially helpful. For whatever reason, the bus…

Another somewhat successful area: Very specific task based home maintenance instructional videos on youtube.

I'm not sure why but if I look up specific tasks I do find what seem like capable handy man / plumbers or similar folks with good quality advice.

Medical stuff.... oh gawd almost no chance of good advice there. But maybe that's because the range of "hey we don't know" or "it's complicated" that you're going to get from honest folks when it comes to the medical world, and most folks gravitate towards solid answers that hucksters love to give.

Hucksters might find it hard to monetize "how to cut down a small tree", while "cold remedies" are prime grounds for them.

Re: What would a “good” WebMD look like?

#39

Post by tmoravec » Tue, Aug 30, 2022, 2:09 PM UTC

ravenstine wrote: post #31

jjar wrote: post #15

A better question might be: Why is the private sector responsible for providing accurate health information? As this article shows, the incentives for people running medical websites and the people reading them are not aligned. I'd say the UK NHS website and symptoms/medications pages hit the nail on the head - https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/ . It has no advertising and provides short, easily readable and actionable i…

That's a nice page, and I'll definitely bookmark that one. But I don't see most of the public using something like that over WebMD. WebMD is complete trash (I even block it in my Kagi search preferences), but it succeeds over sites like the NHS one because of blog SEO. WebMD is really a glorified blog with posts about every condition you might get paranoid over. I don't know how precisely they achieve this, but they'…

So there's a private option that's terrible (WebMD) and a private option that's terrific (Merck Manuals). And it's the terrible one that ranks well at Google.

Sounds like a Google problem and apparently only a Google problem.

Re: What would a “good” WebMD look like?

#40

Post by hhmc » Tue, Aug 30, 2022, 2:10 PM UTC

ravenstine wrote: post #31

jjar wrote: post #15

A better question might be: Why is the private sector responsible for providing accurate health information? As this article shows, the incentives for people running medical websites and the people reading them are not aligned. I'd say the UK NHS website and symptoms/medications pages hit the nail on the head - https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/ . It has no advertising and provides short, easily readable and actionable i…

That's a nice page, and I'll definitely bookmark that one. But I don't see most of the public using something like that over WebMD. WebMD is complete trash (I even block it in my Kagi search preferences), but it succeeds over sites like the NHS one because of blog SEO. WebMD is really a glorified blog with posts about every condition you might get paranoid over. I don't know how precisely they achieve this, but they'…

I'd make the claim (without any real data), that the NHS has _such_ institutional power in the UK that it goes a long way to transcend any SEO shortfall it may have.