3 ms·

Let me address these: 1. No one links to them. You are welcome to google. Eg here: https://www.nytimes.com/guides/year-of-living-better/how-to-build-muscle-str

by AhmedF 7y ago

Let me address these: 1. No one links to them. You are welcome to google. Eg here: https://www.nytimes.com/guides/year-of-living-better/how-to-build-muscle-strength/ https://www.nytimes.com/guides/year-of-living-better/how-to-... - you'll see their entire supplement section is from our site 2. That is our one, and it's more of a play on 2019 and 19. If you read the article, you'll see it's no-nosense. 3. How exactly do I prove someone is real? A quick google search shows this guy: https://twitter.com/drmikehart https://twitter.com/drmikehart - you are welcome to tweet at him. Or at the others. 4. We analyze information and sell that for revenue. We are a business - alas, we have no tree that grows money in our backyard.

jackpirate 7y ago
3. How exactly do I prove someone is real? A quick google search shows this guy: https://twitter.com/drmikehart https://twitter.com/drmikehart - you are welcome to tweet at him. Or at the others. Why don't you just provide a link and save the user from having to google? I'd trust a link to a medical practice looking business website much more than to a twitter account.
tus88 7y ago
> 3. How exactly do I prove someone is real? A link to his biography at his alma-mater, doctor profile at the hospital or clinic where he works, his personal web-site. There are a few things that would inspire confidence.
tallanvor 7y ago
1. There is no good reason not to link to them, there are only bad reasons not to link to them. You're not linking to them because they're not outright endorsements, and you know it. 2. The item below that is '4 science-based “superfoods” you should consider eating'. That's pretty much just as much click-bait as the other. 3. You link to the person providing the review, preferably to a page where they actually say that they're recommending your site. Why are you making it my - or anyone else's - job to figure out who is endorsing you and to verify that they really have? 4. Yes, you are a business, and you really make it clear on your main page. Like it or not, people don't put blind faith in companies trying to sell them stuff. That makes your job harder, sure, but that's life. Look, at the end of the day you can ignore what I've written. I'm not claiming to be anyone or have any sort of following. I'm not a developer, I work in support, and I deal with customers, so I spend a lot of time trying to see things from their perspective. You've lost a lot of potential business from Google de-emphasizing your site in their results. I don't claim to know why they've done this, I'm just giving my impressions when I look at things from the perspective of the average user (insomuch as there is an "average user", of course). Looking deeper, I tried to checkout some backlinks to your site. From news sites, I see a couple of trends, some good, some not so good. The Washington Post article you link to is actually one of the better ones - it's not an actual endorsement from WaPo, but it is a 3rd party recommending your site. The article you link to from The New York Times, and another one from The Sydney Morning Herald, aren't really good links - they're quoting Kamal Patel as the director of Examine.com. The NYT at least does provide a few deep links, but still, I doubt it comes off as a real endorsement to the average reader. I could go on, but I'm not an SEO expert, and your reply doesn't really make it seem like you're open to feedback.
- AhmedF 7y ago
  You are literally trying to find things to complain about. 1. It's standard MO not to. We never even claimed outright endorsements... 2. Did you click on the link? We immediately say how superfoods do not exist. As I said - just trying to fight it. 3. Anahand literally decided to quote the entire supplement section of his strength building guide (which was a section in the published newspaper) to us. If that's not an endorsement, I don't know what is. Or you can go ahead and tweet at him. There isn't a conspiracy around every corner. 4. Yes, and we appreciate that. We also note we do not sell supplements. We have no ads. We sell information. Here's an example: https://a99d9b858c7df59c454c-96c6baa7fa2a34c80f17051de799bc8e.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/erd/sneakpeek.pdf https://a99d9b858c7df59c454c-96c6baa7fa2a34c80f17051de799bc8... - I wonder how you'll find ways to nitpick at that. > open to feedback This isn't feedback. This is you trying to find reasons to dismiss the website. There is no good faith here.
  - shaklee3 7y ago
    Sorry you're having to defend yourself so much. I just discovered the site from this post, and it's excellent.
pbhjpbhj 7y ago
Re 3. providing a bio and referencing their other work is a good start; as is linking to trusted sources, LinkedIn, the person's Uni or business resumé page, a "verified" Twitter account might work; if they're of note they may have a Wikipedia page ...
- AhmedF 7y ago
  Good idea! Here's Kamal's thorough bio page: https://examine.com/user/kamalpatel/ https://examine.com/user/kamalpatel/ Here's Kamal verified on twitter: https://twitter.com/zenkamal https://twitter.com/zenkamal Here's him on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_Patel_(researcher) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_Patel_(researcher) Here's Examine.com on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examine.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examine.com
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    Just FYI I was addressing the question. You're being a bit salty. You should have asked "what else other than x, y , z" if you already had a good answer. Aside: the Creatine page links to https://examine.com/about/#researchers https://examine.com/about/#researchers which is below where Kamal Patel appears on that page, so I scanned down the page and he wasn't mentioned (he's at the top, but I had to search to find him). That page is long, and linking to generic prose about researchers from a named link made me think there was no information on that person. That could be a one-off error, of course.
    - tptacek 7y ago
      He's being salty elsewhere because HN commenters are being rude to him. Here, he's just directly addressing the parent comment, without providing any color at all.
9935c101ab17a66 7y ago
Hahahaha, this is largely unrelated, but I can attest that mike is a real person — he and I taught tennis together 12 years ago. Small world.

by AhmedF 7y ago

jackpirate 7y ago

3. How exactly do I prove someone is real? A quick google search shows this guy: https://twitter.com/drmikehart https://twitter.com/drmikehart - you are welcome to tweet at him. Or at the others. Why don't you just provide a link and save the user from having to google? I'd trust a link to a medical practice looking business website much more than to a twitter account.

tus88 7y ago

> 3. How exactly do I prove someone is real? A link to his biography at his alma-mater, doctor profile at the hospital or clinic where he works, his personal web-site. There are a few things that would inspire confidence.

tallanvor 7y ago

1. There is no good reason not to link to them, there are only bad reasons not to link to them. You're not linking to them because they're not outright endorsements, and you know it. 2. The item below that is '4 science-based “superfoods” you should consider eating'. That's pretty much just as much click-bait as the other. 3. You link to the person providing the review, preferably to a page where they actually say that they're recommending your site. Why are you making it my - or anyone else's - job to figure out who is endorsing you and to verify that they really have? 4. Yes, you are a business, and you really make it clear on your main page. Like it or not, people don't put blind faith in companies trying to sell them stuff. That makes your job harder, sure, but that's life. Look, at the end of the day you can ignore what I've written. I'm not claiming to be anyone or have any sort of following. I'm not a developer, I work in support, and I deal with customers, so I spend a lot of time trying to see things from their perspective. You've lost a lot of potential business from Google de-emphasizing your site in their results. I don't claim to know why they've done this, I'm just giving my impressions when I look at things from the perspective of the average user (insomuch as there is an "average user", of course). Looking deeper, I tried to checkout some backlinks to your site. From news sites, I see a couple of trends, some good, some not so good. The Washington Post article you link to is actually one of the better ones - it's not an actual endorsement from WaPo, but it is a 3rd party recommending your site. The article you link to from The New York Times, and another one from The Sydney Morning Herald, aren't really good links - they're quoting Kamal Patel as the director of Examine.com. The NYT at least does provide a few deep links, but still, I doubt it comes off as a real endorsement to the average reader. I could go on, but I'm not an SEO expert, and your reply doesn't really make it seem like you're open to feedback.

AhmedF 7y ago
You are literally trying to find things to complain about. 1. It's standard MO not to. We never even claimed outright endorsements... 2. Did you click on the link? We immediately say how superfoods do not exist. As I said - just trying to fight it. 3. Anahand literally decided to quote the entire supplement section of his strength building guide (which was a section in the published newspaper) to us. If that's not an endorsement, I don't know what is. Or you can go ahead and tweet at him. There isn't a conspiracy around every corner. 4. Yes, and we appreciate that. We also note we do not sell supplements. We have no ads. We sell information. Here's an example: https://a99d9b858c7df59c454c-96c6baa7fa2a34c80f17051de799bc8e.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/erd/sneakpeek.pdf https://a99d9b858c7df59c454c-96c6baa7fa2a34c80f17051de799bc8... - I wonder how you'll find ways to nitpick at that. > open to feedback This isn't feedback. This is you trying to find reasons to dismiss the website. There is no good faith here.
- shaklee3 7y ago
  Sorry you're having to defend yourself so much. I just discovered the site from this post, and it's excellent.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago

Re 3. providing a bio and referencing their other work is a good start; as is linking to trusted sources, LinkedIn, the person's Uni or business resumé page, a "verified" Twitter account might work; if they're of note they may have a Wikipedia page ...

AhmedF 7y ago
Good idea! Here's Kamal's thorough bio page: https://examine.com/user/kamalpatel/ https://examine.com/user/kamalpatel/ Here's Kamal verified on twitter: https://twitter.com/zenkamal https://twitter.com/zenkamal Here's him on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_Patel_(researcher) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_Patel_(researcher) Here's Examine.com on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examine.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examine.com
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  Just FYI I was addressing the question. You're being a bit salty. You should have asked "what else other than x, y , z" if you already had a good answer. Aside: the Creatine page links to https://examine.com/about/#researchers https://examine.com/about/#researchers which is below where Kamal Patel appears on that page, so I scanned down the page and he wasn't mentioned (he's at the top, but I had to search to find him). That page is long, and linking to generic prose about researchers from a named link made me think there was no information on that person. That could be a one-off error, of course.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    He's being salty elsewhere because HN commenters are being rude to him. Here, he's just directly addressing the parent comment, without providing any color at all.

9935c101ab17a66 7y ago

Hahahaha, this is largely unrelated, but I can attest that mike is a real person — he and I taught tennis together 12 years ago. Small world.