Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What would a “good” WebMD look like?

blog.tjcx.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 323 posts

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

#301

Post by gtirloni »

nradov wrote: post #223
gtirloni wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's a human curating content or an algorithm doing so, I don't see how that helps Google on a lawsuit. Unless they blame sentience. The best algorithms adapt to feedback. Surely Google's own algorithm can accept Google's feedback to adjust for flaws in it.

What lawsuit? There is no legal basis for a lawsuit. As a private corporation, Google is free to rank search results however they like regardless of whether that's done by humans or algorithms.

You'd think so but Google has essentially a monopoly depending how you look at it and some countries have stricter rules than others.

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

#302

Post by nradov »

gtirloni wrote: post #301
nradov wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What lawsuit? There is no legal basis for a lawsuit. As a private corporation, Google is free to rank search results however they like regardless of whether that's done by humans or algorithms.

You'd think so but Google has essentially a monopoly depending how you look at it and some countries have stricter rules than others.

So what? You haven't cited a successful lawsuit against Google on that issue, or even a plausible legal theory. Have you discussed this with an actual attorney?

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

#303

Post by Cd00d »

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 want to thank you for posting this. I was not aware of the Merck Manuals, and have often struggled to identify useful information on WebMD or Mayo Clinic sites.

Today my wife had a specific medical concern that we wanted supplementary information about, and because of your link we had incredibly helpful and credible insight that helped us and provided a deeper understanding of what her physician was saying.

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

#304

Post by culi »

kwertyoowiyop wrote: post #4

Sure this article is spammy self-promotion, but their prototype is exciting. I’d use it. It’s frustrating to go to a drugstore and see medicines for a cough, let’s say, each with a different active ingredient, and be unable to find concrete information comparing the effectiveness of each ingredient. And wow, the WebMD article they mentioned on essential oils was terrible. It really lowers my opinion of WebMD. At this…

What exactly is wrong with the WebMD article? There wasn't really anything inaccurate there... Is it just about tone?

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

#305

Post by snickerbockers »

Cd00d wrote: post #87
gnz11 wrote: post #27

Goes without saying, but "Don't google your symptoms." has been an unwritten law of the Internet since Google first became the dominant search engine. WebMD and its knockoffs have been hot garbage for quite some time now.

There's a standup bit, I don't remember who the comic is, where he says, "my elbow was kinda sore after I was playing a bunch of tennis. I looked it up on the internet and oh no! It turns out I have elbow cancer!"

im not sure i see the punchline? theres a group of connective tissue cancers called sarcomas that are often found near knees and elbows.

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

#307

Post by Vecr »

mananaysiempre wrote: post #24

> Why can't I see the percent of people who experience a particular side effect? Is that a US thing? Because I’m looking at the small-print paper thingie that came ( has to come) with a moderately dramatic prescription drug, and it has: “Side effects: very frequent ( ≥ 10%): ... frequent ( ≥ 1% and infrequent ( ≥ 0.1% and rare ( ≥ 0.01% and very rare ( The following side effects were observed after this drug was rele…

Look up "[drug] FDA prescribing guide", you should be able to find it, though search engines recently appear to have gotten a bit worse at it.

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

#308

Post by petepete »

nicoburns wrote: post #190
lupire wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

SEO is what the scammers use. When Google prioritises an authoritative page, that’s making SEO less important.

This. The major risk isn't losing to SEO, it's that the shady operators pay for ads that appear above search results.

Lots of people don't realise they're ads and not the official service.

Google didn't really do much to combat it until the law was changed a year or two ago.

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

#309

Post by gtirloni »

nradov wrote: post #302
gtirloni wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd think so but Google has essentially a monopoly depending how you look at it and some countries have stricter rules than others.

So what? You haven't cited a successful lawsuit against Google on that issue, or even a plausible legal theory. Have you discussed this with an actual attorney?

I wasn't the one mentioning lawsuits. Check OP's message I was replying to. You seem confused.

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

#310

Post by ciphol »

criddell wrote: post #54
lastofthemojito wrote: post #12

I always figured it was due to liability. WebMD wants the monetizable traffic but not the liability of ya know, providing health care. So they profit off of the user's duress and just recommend they see a health care professional anyhow.

Of all the places Google could send people, WebMD isn't the worst. Amazon reviews, for example, have lots of terrible medical advice in them. Go to an apricot kernel page and look at the product reviews. I just did and the first review says: > I have cancer, have not treated it yet but I've started with these. Easy to use, clean fresh product A few reviews down: > THE BITTER THE BETTER! And they really are! People ne…

That bitterness is cyanide, right?
Post reply on HN