Well the new version of medlogs has been very popular. We had to increase our bandwidth .. setting me back another $14 a month … so all of you owe me a nickle.
Today's e-mail has an appropriate comment that has made me think a bit about how medlogs is organized.
You've been around for five years, and I have a lot of respect for the work and thought you've put into your writing — and your aggregator. I've been around for five months, but I've come to rely on weblogs and hope it succeeds as a useful tool.
But on July 14th, the Medlogs "physician" section had 37 new items. Six were from Mercola, who urges readers to drop their prescription statins in favor of his diet plan, and links to sites claiming HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
Another thirteen were from something called Waukesha Family Practice. Judging by the juveline posts, I'm almost inclined to think the Waukesha family is planning to practice blogging on medlogs.
About 20 of the 37 posts had nothing to do with medicine.
Now, about half of what I write on blogborygmi isn't strictly medical, but then again, I don't claim to aggregate medical news.
Regardless of their quality, too many blogs are being listed in medlogs inappropriately. I actually like Faughnan, but don't think he's ever written about medicine. On the other extreme, I think mercola is a menace, yet he dominates your site with a half-dozen ads a day.
You seem wary of the google ads, (which are innocuous and fine) but where's the concern over Mercola's advertisment / posts? At least Google pays you for space.
I guess what I'm suggesting is, to avoid more July 14ths, and to keep Medlogs from collapsing under its permissiveness, some kind of rules should exist.
— indexed blogs should be 50% medical? I'd hate to see Faughnan or Chai Tea Latte go, but it might be worth it to get rid of the Waukesha family.
— indexed blogs shouldn't be selling stuff via their blog? If it means closing down my Storeborygmi, it might be worth it. At least I'm not posting about how other people's T-shirts and coffee mugs are lethal.
I think we can both agree that medlogs can be a wonderful aid for bloggers and lay readers alike. It'd be a shame for your site to go the way of email, and become a victim of bandwidth-wasting hucksterism and nonsense.
Frankly, I agree with him. I e-mailed Dr Mercola a few weeks ago and asked him who writes his posts and expressed some concerns about the commercial nature of them .. selling the book, etc.
I don't want to be in the position of ccensoring feeds .. so I think the 1st method of handling this is to make a "More" category … and we'll take a more active editorial role. When I'm not finding interest in the top few posts .. that means you're not either .. so the value of medlogs falls away. Comments or suggestions?
2 thoughts on “Medlogs Comments — please!”
How is it decided which blogs have just the title of the entry in the medlogs page versus the title and some of the content? it seems a bit random.
I think any position you take is fine as long as you have a transparent set of rules, available in a place where any interested reader or participant can see them.
Personally, I would ditch the “patients” part altogether as being too problematic; many of them seem to be pushing a political agenda rather than actual medical advice or experience.
Another option is to take the decision to the reader by allowing people to select or deselect what feeds they see via checkboxes. Use the ratings of what users choose to read or not read reflect what’s shown on the “default” page.
Comments are closed.