4 ms·
It is stunning to me that most people that I know are unable to decouple what Google returns to them from the source. When (i.e. always) I ask for attribution f
by abawany 9y ago
It is stunning to me that most people that I know are unable to decouple what Google returns to them from the source. When (i.e. always) I ask for attribution for what I consider a dubious medical claim, the answer invariably comes back as: Google. I then clarify (for the umpteenth time) that Google is like a radio receiver and they have to be able to tell me what station gave them this information (1). This is often met with a blank stare. I then state that it is important to get information from well-attributed sites, especially for a critical matter such as health, and offer them examples of sites that I consider credible for supplementary medical information (2). It is a little scary how little of a filter most people apply against critical health information.
1: This is the closest analogy I have come upon to explain to folks the difference between websites and search engines.
2: Typically NIH or Mayo Clinic
- mistermann 9y agoIs WebMD bad? It's usually the #1 to 3 hit on google.
- abawany 9y agoIt seems to be a bit content-free, with pop-up ads, and lacking attribution from what I can tell. However, if no other reference is available, I will certainly look at its information over the various other persons that infest the web with fake medical fiction. EDIT: for example, http://www.webmd.com/lung/tc/tuberculosis-tb-topic-overview#1 http://www.webmd.com/lung/tc/tuberculosis-tb-topic-overview#... - if you have never visited WebMD or hit this page using incognito, it will hit you with a pop-up ad within 5 seconds. EDIT2: An under-rated site is the Merck Manual. Their corresponding page for the consumer edition is thus: https://www.merckmanuals.com/home/infections/tuberculosis-and-leprosy/tuberculosis-tb https://www.merckmanuals.com/home/infections/tuberculosis-an... .