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

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

#151

Post by lupire » Tue, Aug 30, 2022, 4:30 PM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #89

tmoravec wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Sounds like a Google problem and apparently only a Google problem. I want something like webrings to become A Thing again. A user curated search engine. And the users doing the curated need to be vetted. I don't know if this is even possible, but I get tired of having to come to HN to get a human recommendation that is miles better than the algorithmic crap from the current search engines.

Web of trust, not web rings.

Post your bookmarks, share to your friends, encourage your friends to do the same. Import those bookmarks into a search engine site fliter extension.

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

#152

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Aug 30, 2022, 4:30 PM UTC

intothemild wrote: post #141

I have a story for all of you on this topic, strap yourselves in. We had the solve for this issue, and we had it back in 2013. I remember interviewing for a brand new startup as the first employee, the idea was that you had an app/website and got the doctor to add what they told you into this app. I remember sitting there and saying during the interview, something like "That adds stress onto the doctors who are alrea…

[deleted]

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

#153

Post by SV_BubbleTime » Tue, Aug 30, 2022, 4:30 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 looked up a “how to change guide spark plugs” for a vehicle.

First hit was SEO garbage that started off “Before we explain the steps, let’s first examine what the proper stoichiometric ratio is!”

… I closed that site while grinding my teeth.

The internet kinda sucks now.

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

#154

Post by SV_BubbleTime » Tue, Aug 30, 2022, 4:32 PM UTC

ajmurmann wrote: post #33

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 knowl…

I wonder if a bounty or information-bridge would work?

Make there an incentive for medical knowledge to dump on there, or have people who are incentivized to go get that data and deliver it.

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

#155

Post by lupire » Tue, Aug 30, 2022, 4:32 PM UTC

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #44

tmoravec wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a bit of a conundrum; on the one side, the NHS and (in a different area) MDN are better, more authoritative, etc sources, so Google should promote those. On the other, this would mean that Google can no longer cite neutrality or hide behind "the algorithm", as has been their legal defense against a ton of lawsuits where the suers said one websites should go higher or lower in the rankings.

Google chooses to rank "authoritative" sites based on its own notion of authoritativity (which they don't share, but they decide).

They implement it as agnostic tuning as much as possible, avoiding single human chery picking sites. They use panels of humans (mturk style) for quality ratings.

Could you imagine the outrage if Google said "The government is always the best source about everything?"

What even would be the point? Use the government search engine for that use case.

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

#156

Post by 0xbadcafebee » Tue, Aug 30, 2022, 4:32 PM UTC

  So to summarize: a good version of WebMD would have:
    * structured, quantitative information
    * real-time updates
    * summaries of supporting evidence
  
  So why hasn't anyone done this yet?

They have: https://www.clinicalkey.com/ However, it's for professionals, and it's not free. Only a professional has the knowledge, experience and context to use the information properly. For patients there are separate products/resources that clinicians can use to give patients more information about their case. But the patient can't just diagnose themselves. And certainly the effort of curating the dataset and developing the toolkit to power it isn't free.

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

#157

Post by faangiq » Tue, Aug 30, 2022, 4:34 PM UTC

A massive improvement would be listing probabilities of various symptoms. Typically you go to WebMD/similar, look something up, and it includes every possible symptom. This creates low signal to noise and makes it difficult to diagnose and understand risks.

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

#158

Post by mikenew » Tue, Aug 30, 2022, 4:34 PM UTC

Examine.com is the closest analogue to what this site is trying to do, and as far as I know, it works. It takes a while, but if people develop trust in a product or website they value that deeply, and are even willing to throw money at it. I don't even consider trying to google a supplement; I'll just go to examine and look at the body of evidence, recommended dosages, etc. I've paid for Examine and I would pay for this.

Here's my point of feedback / wishlist item / thing I think is missing from the world. Examine is focused on supplements, which I don't actually care that much about. If my question is "How do I lower my fasting blood glucose", I don't want a list of what supplements help with that, I want a list of everything that helps with that. If daily cardio is 100X as effective as green tea catechins then IDGAF about green tea. Examine broadened a bit, but it's still very supplement focused, which can give the false impression that some supplement is the best way to approach some condition.

Going by the long covid example, it sounds like this glacierMD takes the broader focus of "here's all the things", which I absolutely love. And there could be a lot of value in that alone. But what I really feel is missing from the world is a comprehensive, salutogenic look at health. Yes I want to know what the best treatments are for long covid. But what I also really want to know is what is the rank ordered list of things I can do to develop and maintain a strong immune system. Or how do I lower my resting heart rate. What even is the optimal fasting blood glucose for that matter? Any searching you do will just tell you "above 100 mg/dL is prediabetic, 99 and below you're perfectly healthy".

Anyway, I love the demo. The author is correct that it is missing from the world. And I 100% think people would pay for it once it grows enough. I do just hope that it isn't purely build around a pathogenic way of thinking, like just about everything else in the medical world seems to be.

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

#159

Post by FalcorTheDog » Tue, Aug 30, 2022, 4:35 PM UTC

aantix wrote: post #148

Five year survival rates listed for local surgeons across the procedures they perform. Sortable by number of procedures performed, death rates on the table, survival rates. I don't care how "kind" the physician is, if they listened to my concerns. I want to know their effectiveness.

How useful would that information be? Seems like a good way to "punish" surgeons that take more difficult cases.

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

#160

Post by lupire » Tue, Aug 30, 2022, 4:35 PM UTC

petepete wrote: post #116

biztos wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does "non-campaign" mean in this context?

The sites that sit on gov.uk are usually either: * transactional services - those that let a person do a task, like applying for a driving licence or registering a trademark * information services - a collection of guidance on a subject, like maximum working hours or data protection responsibilities There are some that don't really fall into either category and are there to advertise something. They aim to be informa…

Why don't you use SEO on your non-campaign transactional and info sites?

Those are the ones that need protection from fee scammers. It seems you've got it exactly backwards.