Aa
old posts need to go ??
This last post from 1999 got to me.
With hep C things change so rapidly, in terms of research, experience, treatment and more, that these old posts in my opinion do not best serve the community.
When I mentioned this to medhelp, I was told that many of them were very supportive.
My view is we are here for two reasons, support and education.
Honestly, I got the impression that medhelp is more concerned with pulling in more members that that they receive updated accurate information.
Anyway, I know how I feel. How do you feel when you see these old posts pop up?
And if you think its a problem, is there anything we should do about it?
With hep C things change so rapidly, in terms of research, experience, treatment and more, that these old posts in my opinion do not best serve the community.
When I mentioned this to medhelp, I was told that many of them were very supportive.
My view is we are here for two reasons, support and education.
Honestly, I got the impression that medhelp is more concerned with pulling in more members that that they receive updated accurate information.
Anyway, I know how I feel. How do you feel when you see these old posts pop up?
And if you think its a problem, is there anything we should do about it?
Archiving might not be necessary if they just clearly show the date of the last comment on it (e.g., 1999), not an icon. That cannot be that complicated of a change to make given posts are already automatically dated.
2nd, There must be some algorithm that would allow posts to come up in order of new to old in the search results when doing a forum search on this site.
I think the old ones need to stay for the purposes of history. I know at one time I was trying to find out what was standard back in the '90's, so history has its place for many reasons.
There may be these little clues/icons (hour glasses. etc) of which long time users are aware, but I think if you ask many "rattled" newcomers just dx'd with HCV they will confirm they have trouble navigating this site. They aren't going to discover the inside info for a long time, and some tend to stop trying to use the site because they make so many mistakes. I've received PMs from people saying so.
2nd, There must be some algorithm that would allow posts to come up in order of new to old in the search results when doing a forum search on this site.
I think the old ones need to stay for the purposes of history. I know at one time I was trying to find out what was standard back in the '90's, so history has its place for many reasons.
There may be these little clues/icons (hour glasses. etc) of which long time users are aware, but I think if you ask many "rattled" newcomers just dx'd with HCV they will confirm they have trouble navigating this site. They aren't going to discover the inside info for a long time, and some tend to stop trying to use the site because they make so many mistakes. I've received PMs from people saying so.
You have 5 paragraphs; I will answer each one;
1) I feel that what MH currently offers is sufficient. The posts are dated and some have at some point a Hourglass, which I guess signifies they are old or antiquated. Instead of MH taking some action, I feel that users must take responsibility for looking at dates, reading the disclaimers and understanding that just because you read it on the internet it ain't necessarily so. I don't think we need some new form of *virtual* training wheels or crash helmets from harming ourselves with dangerous information.
2) Agree, but often old threads also have these, and even those can be true today and false tomorrow; even "new" info.
3) "a place for the small percentage of people who have long range side effects to discuss them."
There is already a place; it is the Hep C forum. : )
To some extent you are changing the topic if you are suggesting a totally separate forum. These old threads have been around here before you or I.
I am merely in opposition of "getting rid of, deleting or culling such threads from MH. It is about Hep C, about side effects of TX, and it is a sizable group of people and growing.
4) Pretend we substituted the post TX sides with side effects from Vioxx (a drug that was pulled from FDA approval because it was unsafe). You would be in favor of pulling negative threads about the effects of Vioxx because it might keep people from treating w/ the drug?
I feel that the information needs to be out there so that people can make an informed choice. I am against hiding, deleting, culling the information from Medhelp, for it removes the possibility of making an informed choice. This is one area which patients are routinely shielded from this information. I am saddened to see it also done on Hep C boards.
I know people who have had great success with TX. I have personally met people whose lives have been shattered by it. I'm just saying..... you can't hide the information, dispose of the information. Let people decide for themselves. It looks to me as though GS7977 will be approved next year. Some people will be able to treat with just GS-7977 and Riba. This could happen next year.
This Post Tx Sides news has been out there for over a decade. Why must something be done now?
5) We are having a second wave of treatment this past 14 months since the PI's were approved. One of my friends I've known for years (and who has treated 2-3 times) is one of those who had a bad effect post TX; serious sides and worsening labs. : (
Your reality has been shaded by your past; you needed a liver transplant. I understand how you want to save people from having to go through what you did.
I think my point is that you can read about these sides on the internet, but until they come and visit, only then do you understand what people were talking about. People have no clue how serious this is, and how much it impacts ones life.
Your view is valid. Almost every forum I have seen had numerous sub-forums. This one has 2 HCV and "social". ; /
No question it would be hard to see these threads while on TX. People have tolerated it for as long as i can remember however and the *light* is visible at the end of the tunnel..... or pipeline.
willy
1) I feel that what MH currently offers is sufficient. The posts are dated and some have at some point a Hourglass, which I guess signifies they are old or antiquated. Instead of MH taking some action, I feel that users must take responsibility for looking at dates, reading the disclaimers and understanding that just because you read it on the internet it ain't necessarily so. I don't think we need some new form of *virtual* training wheels or crash helmets from harming ourselves with dangerous information.
2) Agree, but often old threads also have these, and even those can be true today and false tomorrow; even "new" info.
3) "a place for the small percentage of people who have long range side effects to discuss them."
There is already a place; it is the Hep C forum. : )
To some extent you are changing the topic if you are suggesting a totally separate forum. These old threads have been around here before you or I.
I am merely in opposition of "getting rid of, deleting or culling such threads from MH. It is about Hep C, about side effects of TX, and it is a sizable group of people and growing.
4) Pretend we substituted the post TX sides with side effects from Vioxx (a drug that was pulled from FDA approval because it was unsafe). You would be in favor of pulling negative threads about the effects of Vioxx because it might keep people from treating w/ the drug?
I feel that the information needs to be out there so that people can make an informed choice. I am against hiding, deleting, culling the information from Medhelp, for it removes the possibility of making an informed choice. This is one area which patients are routinely shielded from this information. I am saddened to see it also done on Hep C boards.
I know people who have had great success with TX. I have personally met people whose lives have been shattered by it. I'm just saying..... you can't hide the information, dispose of the information. Let people decide for themselves. It looks to me as though GS7977 will be approved next year. Some people will be able to treat with just GS-7977 and Riba. This could happen next year.
This Post Tx Sides news has been out there for over a decade. Why must something be done now?
5) We are having a second wave of treatment this past 14 months since the PI's were approved. One of my friends I've known for years (and who has treated 2-3 times) is one of those who had a bad effect post TX; serious sides and worsening labs. : (
Your reality has been shaded by your past; you needed a liver transplant. I understand how you want to save people from having to go through what you did.
I think my point is that you can read about these sides on the internet, but until they come and visit, only then do you understand what people were talking about. People have no clue how serious this is, and how much it impacts ones life.
Your view is valid. Almost every forum I have seen had numerous sub-forums. This one has 2 HCV and "social". ; /
No question it would be hard to see these threads while on TX. People have tolerated it for as long as i can remember however and the *light* is visible at the end of the tunnel..... or pipeline.
willy
Perhaps the answer it finding a way to make truly old posts more obvious to newbies.
Everyone should be aware of the fact that what you read on any forum is simply one person's opinion. That is why many of us try to use creditable links to back up our information.
There indeed needs to be a place for the small percentage of people who have long range side effects to discuss them.
I believe Rivil tried to start a group with that purpose in mind.
Many of us discourage these discussions simply out of empathy for those currently doing treatment. The last thing you want to think about when you're already half crazy and anxious on interferon, is some possible long term damage.
I wonder what will happen with these threads one the new orals are common place and interferon for hep C is a thing of the past?
Everyone should be aware of the fact that what you read on any forum is simply one person's opinion. That is why many of us try to use creditable links to back up our information.
There indeed needs to be a place for the small percentage of people who have long range side effects to discuss them.
I believe Rivil tried to start a group with that purpose in mind.
Many of us discourage these discussions simply out of empathy for those currently doing treatment. The last thing you want to think about when you're already half crazy and anxious on interferon, is some possible long term damage.
I wonder what will happen with these threads one the new orals are common place and interferon for hep C is a thing of the past?
A HCV drug trial was recently stopped in FDA approval process. Things change on a day to day and week to week process. It is beyond the scope of what Medhelp can do.......or should do....... to vet all these changes out.
If people are needlessly worrying about incorporating 10 year old information into their current protocol, but are not capable of reading the date of a post.......well...... you can't make the internet *safe* for everybody. : /
People get concerned about whether a post is current. I am just as concerned about misinformed current posts, or posts with a particular bias. Just like the old so called "outdated" posts, these also carry the potential for having bad information.
Just because a post is old......does not mean that the information is incorrect. Indeed, some may be in greater detail, or contain a nice panorama of viewpoints or useful and well written dialogue. Considering the value of a post merely by the date it was posted is so......ageist. : )
This forum is a repository of information, some of it is anecdotal. One of my interests and concerns is the effects of interferon on a small population group of people who have treated.
Some of the anecdotal reports of these people could provide some information or impetus for some informed group of doctors to try to help these 1-5% of people who continue to suffer from lingering effects. If one deleted or made inaccessible the many such posts on this forum merely because they are old, you will essentially be rewriting history, only allowing the "success stories".
This is only one sliver or segment of the board where old posts may still be of use and may even provide some hope for a cure for these folks. There are many other topics where old posts may have equal or better information than newer posts.
willy
If people are needlessly worrying about incorporating 10 year old information into their current protocol, but are not capable of reading the date of a post.......well...... you can't make the internet *safe* for everybody. : /
People get concerned about whether a post is current. I am just as concerned about misinformed current posts, or posts with a particular bias. Just like the old so called "outdated" posts, these also carry the potential for having bad information.
Just because a post is old......does not mean that the information is incorrect. Indeed, some may be in greater detail, or contain a nice panorama of viewpoints or useful and well written dialogue. Considering the value of a post merely by the date it was posted is so......ageist. : )
This forum is a repository of information, some of it is anecdotal. One of my interests and concerns is the effects of interferon on a small population group of people who have treated.
Some of the anecdotal reports of these people could provide some information or impetus for some informed group of doctors to try to help these 1-5% of people who continue to suffer from lingering effects. If one deleted or made inaccessible the many such posts on this forum merely because they are old, you will essentially be rewriting history, only allowing the "success stories".
This is only one sliver or segment of the board where old posts may still be of use and may even provide some hope for a cure for these folks. There are many other topics where old posts may have equal or better information than newer posts.
willy
Hi there -
We discuss the older threads all the time, and it isn't easy to find a balance. Many new members find us through these older threads in Google, and we want them to find us. Yes, there is the advertising part, but we really do want members to find us to get some of the best info there is from really great people.
I'll pass on your suggestions about the Search function.
(Yes, I realize this is an older thread lol.)
Em
We discuss the older threads all the time, and it isn't easy to find a balance. Many new members find us through these older threads in Google, and we want them to find us. Yes, there is the advertising part, but we really do want members to find us to get some of the best info there is from really great people.
I'll pass on your suggestions about the Search function.
(Yes, I realize this is an older thread lol.)
Em
Hi, I know this is an old post however I wanted to say that the idea to change the results of a search from newest to oldest is a great idea
It used to be much easier to conduct a search on here
Something changed back in September and we lost some of our functions or perhaps they were modified, I was not aware that MH received credit each time we clicked. :)
Dee
It used to be much easier to conduct a search on here
Something changed back in September and we lost some of our functions or perhaps they were modified, I was not aware that MH received credit each time we clicked. :)
Dee
So, it seems like the consensus here is the main problem is that the search has no order to it and most people would like the search function to go from newest to oldest.
Any other input ?
Any other input ?
You forgot to mention the bunker is EMP hardened against nuclear attack, Will :o).
FaithforHealing- the hourglass icon is located just to the right of the original poster and date of post. Some of us do catalogue peer reviewed, published articles in bookmarks/Word docs.
--Bill
FaithforHealing- the hourglass icon is located just to the right of the original poster and date of post. Some of us do catalogue peer reviewed, published articles in bookmarks/Word docs.
--Bill
Aren't there some days you just don't have the time/energy to give your best answer again, maybe something you have fully explained several times in prior posts? Or do you store answers somewhere else (e.g., word) and copy and paste them?
---------------------------------------------------
I heard Bill1954 sits in a computerized bunker with about 12 wallsize screens and at least 4 keyboards with all the lastest HCV info at his finger tips at the ready..
me .. I just wander around with my berry making stuff up as I go along . :0)
Will
---------------------------------------------------
I heard Bill1954 sits in a computerized bunker with about 12 wallsize screens and at least 4 keyboards with all the lastest HCV info at his finger tips at the ready..
me .. I just wander around with my berry making stuff up as I go along . :0)
Will
Anyone else, have ideas??
--------------------------------------------------------------
I think it would be a big help if MH would allow the search to sort by "newest first". If you were looking for an older thread, you could just scroll through the pages until you got to the date range you're looking for. Ideally, it would be good to be able to select a beginning and ending date range if you knew about when this item was posted. This change is so easy to make and would be simple to impliment. No posts would be lost.
However, as we know MH is a for-profit site who's revenue is generated by the number of clicks. If simplifying the search would reduce the number of "hits" on the website, this might potentially impact their monthly numbers reported to their advertisers. The more time we spend clicking and poking around looking for information, the higher the "hits". Just my thoughts. MH could make a great site even better with some minor improvements.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I think it would be a big help if MH would allow the search to sort by "newest first". If you were looking for an older thread, you could just scroll through the pages until you got to the date range you're looking for. Ideally, it would be good to be able to select a beginning and ending date range if you knew about when this item was posted. This change is so easy to make and would be simple to impliment. No posts would be lost.
However, as we know MH is a for-profit site who's revenue is generated by the number of clicks. If simplifying the search would reduce the number of "hits" on the website, this might potentially impact their monthly numbers reported to their advertisers. The more time we spend clicking and poking around looking for information, the higher the "hits". Just my thoughts. MH could make a great site even better with some minor improvements.
Where is the icon/hour glass or whatever that indicates a date of a post or thread?
How do we contact Medhelp to make a comment?
I am also wondering how veterans of this site (who often have the most information to share) feel about seeing the same questions posted over and over. Aren't there some days you just don't have the time/energy to give your best answer again, maybe something you have fully explained several times in prior posts? Or do you store answers somewhere else (e.g., word) and copy and paste them? Good answers are sometimes very extensive with data, statistics, links; we greatly appreciate them and I hope everyone has an opportunity to see them in their entirety.
How do we contact Medhelp to make a comment?
I am also wondering how veterans of this site (who often have the most information to share) feel about seeing the same questions posted over and over. Aren't there some days you just don't have the time/energy to give your best answer again, maybe something you have fully explained several times in prior posts? Or do you store answers somewhere else (e.g., word) and copy and paste them? Good answers are sometimes very extensive with data, statistics, links; we greatly appreciate them and I hope everyone has an opportunity to see them in their entirety.
"Just being able to find old things is very useful"
Perhaps~ but as Faith pointed out, we search and get a random sampling.
There is no order, the dates aren't prominent.
Not everyone has a clear mind or is good at doing a search.
Perhaps the main change needed is simply a way to search via date, or having an option to search oldest to newest or visa versa.
While you, an older member seems to have no problem with the search, many members here, especially newbies do. I'm not a newbie and I have a very hard time with it.
Anyone else, have ideas??
Perhaps~ but as Faith pointed out, we search and get a random sampling.
There is no order, the dates aren't prominent.
Not everyone has a clear mind or is good at doing a search.
Perhaps the main change needed is simply a way to search via date, or having an option to search oldest to newest or visa versa.
While you, an older member seems to have no problem with the search, many members here, especially newbies do. I'm not a newbie and I have a very hard time with it.
Anyone else, have ideas??
Greta, it may indeed be a simple matter to enlarge the script, bold face it etc. I agree that this would be useful in the search engine. There may also be a more refined/advanced seacrh protocols which might allow for this. Has anyone noticed that there is a entire board search engine and a exclusively HCV separate search engine?
I agree that sometimes the responses are on topic, but sometimes they are off topic and just a lazy way of introducing themselves; usually a newbie move.
Orphaned; the question is if it is indeed an improvement. This forum has a lot of depth in membership and information. Just being able to find old things is very useful. There are numerous forums that have crashed and lost their whole forums. I am aware of 3-4 that lost the entire forum. Any old protocols, treatment strategies, issues were erased; gone forever. Medhelp has more information and history here than any other forum, hands down. Why eliminate that? For me, that would not be an improvement.
Flcyclist; the name you was possibly hepatitisresearcher. A phd doctor, I think possibly a microbiologist, who privately owned of a fibroscan machine (one of only a few in the USA at the time), and several members here received fibroscans from him. He was a patent holder for the ultra-sensitive HCV PCR's.
There is a link to his posts at the bottom of the page;
http://www.medhelp.org/health_pages/Hepatitis/HepResearcher-doctor-on-various-topics/show/38?cid=64
I agree that sometimes the responses are on topic, but sometimes they are off topic and just a lazy way of introducing themselves; usually a newbie move.
Orphaned; the question is if it is indeed an improvement. This forum has a lot of depth in membership and information. Just being able to find old things is very useful. There are numerous forums that have crashed and lost their whole forums. I am aware of 3-4 that lost the entire forum. Any old protocols, treatment strategies, issues were erased; gone forever. Medhelp has more information and history here than any other forum, hands down. Why eliminate that? For me, that would not be an improvement.
Flcyclist; the name you was possibly hepatitisresearcher. A phd doctor, I think possibly a microbiologist, who privately owned of a fibroscan machine (one of only a few in the USA at the time), and several members here received fibroscans from him. He was a patent holder for the ultra-sensitive HCV PCR's.
There is a link to his posts at the bottom of the page;
http://www.medhelp.org/health_pages/Hepatitis/HepResearcher-doctor-on-various-topics/show/38?cid=64
I know it's not up to us.
But I do think medhelp might take our views into consideration.
I've noticed this forum is not nearly as active as it once was.
They may be interested in ideas for improvement.
My plan is to submit this post to them.
I complained once about the search function and was asked what it was that bothered me about it.
If enough of us feel the search should be sorted differently,why not let them know?
What do we have to lose?
Any other suggestions, gang?
But I do think medhelp might take our views into consideration.
I've noticed this forum is not nearly as active as it once was.
They may be interested in ideas for improvement.
My plan is to submit this post to them.
I complained once about the search function and was asked what it was that bothered me about it.
If enough of us feel the search should be sorted differently,why not let them know?
What do we have to lose?
Any other suggestions, gang?
Agree Willy. I've read several old posts and gleaned some very good information from them that still apply. I recall reading several older threads (5+ year old) that one of the doctors (Hepdoc??? - forget the name) would frequently contribute. His explanations and input was very valuable for forum members at the time and still good info today.
I do wish that when doing a search, the results would be listed as most recent first in decending order. No reason to delete posts or put them into a separate archived sub-forum that never gets visited, but it would be so much easier to find recent information.
I do wish that when doing a search, the results would be listed as most recent first in decending order. No reason to delete posts or put them into a separate archived sub-forum that never gets visited, but it would be so much easier to find recent information.
I agree, simply dating the old posts would help tremendously!
It's the internet. Information new, old, accurate, inaccurate is out there. People have to deal with it, deal with their doctors, ask questions of people who know.
Your concern is not baseless; it is valid. I just disagree. Neither of us are wrong, we just have different opinions.
I just don't see it as the role of members to tell the folks that run the forum what they should delete, archive, lock. I don't see any such committee who I would respect to decide what we can or cannot read or respond to, unless it violates the "terms of use".
I've said my preference and why I feel that way. It's fine with me if others feel differently. It seems to me though..... a slippery slope when one starts pruning threads, deleting threads, forbidding subjects......*we wouldn't want to scare or confuse anybody*.
Who is the person who decides what we can or cannot read?
It also seems to be implicit that if your "outdated" or old information is archived...... would that not also mean that SOC threads should be locked? : )
We wouldn't want anybody getting confused about efficacy rates, EOT PCR timing, TX duration?
Obviously, I am kidding, but these seem to be the same criteria by which you would delete/lock/archive other such threads, no?
Changes of this sort wouldn't even be on my list, but I'd be surprised if it is at the top of most folk's list. I just thought I'd throw out my view.
You wrote;
"Is this worth keeping old posts for entertainment? "
Well, I don't think that any of this exists for entertainment, although some may indeed be entertaining.
I think that the history of TX is interesting and the history of what people think about HCV, TX and all sorts of things is interesting, historical, serves as a marker for how things were so we can compare them to how things are now.
I think reading discussions between informed people is instructive and shapes critical thought; regardless of what is being discussed; the old thread that Bill provided a link to serves as evidence of that which I refer to, but there are many other excellent threads in this forum.
I think I share your view about newbies just responding to random or old threads instead of starting a new thread. But the issue is the newbie; not the old thread, per se.
willy
Your concern is not baseless; it is valid. I just disagree. Neither of us are wrong, we just have different opinions.
I just don't see it as the role of members to tell the folks that run the forum what they should delete, archive, lock. I don't see any such committee who I would respect to decide what we can or cannot read or respond to, unless it violates the "terms of use".
I've said my preference and why I feel that way. It's fine with me if others feel differently. It seems to me though..... a slippery slope when one starts pruning threads, deleting threads, forbidding subjects......*we wouldn't want to scare or confuse anybody*.
Who is the person who decides what we can or cannot read?
It also seems to be implicit that if your "outdated" or old information is archived...... would that not also mean that SOC threads should be locked? : )
We wouldn't want anybody getting confused about efficacy rates, EOT PCR timing, TX duration?
Obviously, I am kidding, but these seem to be the same criteria by which you would delete/lock/archive other such threads, no?
Changes of this sort wouldn't even be on my list, but I'd be surprised if it is at the top of most folk's list. I just thought I'd throw out my view.
You wrote;
"Is this worth keeping old posts for entertainment? "
Well, I don't think that any of this exists for entertainment, although some may indeed be entertaining.
I think that the history of TX is interesting and the history of what people think about HCV, TX and all sorts of things is interesting, historical, serves as a marker for how things were so we can compare them to how things are now.
I think reading discussions between informed people is instructive and shapes critical thought; regardless of what is being discussed; the old thread that Bill provided a link to serves as evidence of that which I refer to, but there are many other excellent threads in this forum.
I think I share your view about newbies just responding to random or old threads instead of starting a new thread. But the issue is the newbie; not the old thread, per se.
willy
I agree with much of what has been said and some of the responses & suggestions hadn't occurred to me so thanks to all for posting.
1. When I first joined (2005 or so) it used to be easy to search through the HCV Archives (even though they were accessible only by the title of the post). Since then the forum structure has changed so I am not even certain *how* one would access the HCV Archives these days.
2. I honestly read just about all posts but sorry but this is one forum where I do not read bumped posts. In fact, for some reason it seems impertinent (??) to bump a post on this forum. That's just me and I am not really sure why.
3. The Forum Admin needs to figure out how to unclutter old & new data - whether it is re-vamping the "Archives" or whatever. I agree the dated questions most likely arise from Google search.
4. I am not sure how I feel about removing super old material that is outdated and inaccurate. If the Search Function and the Archives had any type of meaningful or helpful value then I would suggest leaving things as they are.
5. I know this might sound mean but I could not help but chuckle at someone's rant about basing treatment on other people's advice. The post itself was dated 2005 (or something like that); the post arose again in 2008 and by the time Google Search regurgitated it again in 2012, virtually all info in the post (and responses) was ridiculously outdated. I mean to the point where the entire SOC literally changed. Yet here was some new person posting a heated response based on his (or her) apparently somewhat dated experience.
6. If MedHelp were a solely Social Forum I would not hesitate suggesting locking (or removing) old threads but I am not sure what the solution is since it isn't. I do know the "Search Function" and if there even is an "Archives section" are totally useless on this forum which is a shame since there are times I am not always in the mood to post a new question related to a topic I am sure has been asked fairly often.
1. When I first joined (2005 or so) it used to be easy to search through the HCV Archives (even though they were accessible only by the title of the post). Since then the forum structure has changed so I am not even certain *how* one would access the HCV Archives these days.
2. I honestly read just about all posts but sorry but this is one forum where I do not read bumped posts. In fact, for some reason it seems impertinent (??) to bump a post on this forum. That's just me and I am not really sure why.
3. The Forum Admin needs to figure out how to unclutter old & new data - whether it is re-vamping the "Archives" or whatever. I agree the dated questions most likely arise from Google search.
4. I am not sure how I feel about removing super old material that is outdated and inaccurate. If the Search Function and the Archives had any type of meaningful or helpful value then I would suggest leaving things as they are.
5. I know this might sound mean but I could not help but chuckle at someone's rant about basing treatment on other people's advice. The post itself was dated 2005 (or something like that); the post arose again in 2008 and by the time Google Search regurgitated it again in 2012, virtually all info in the post (and responses) was ridiculously outdated. I mean to the point where the entire SOC literally changed. Yet here was some new person posting a heated response based on his (or her) apparently somewhat dated experience.
6. If MedHelp were a solely Social Forum I would not hesitate suggesting locking (or removing) old threads but I am not sure what the solution is since it isn't. I do know the "Search Function" and if there even is an "Archives section" are totally useless on this forum which is a shame since there are times I am not always in the mood to post a new question related to a topic I am sure has been asked fairly often.
Something needs to be done! A newbie comes on, searches "newest treatments" and 153 posts come up, only 10 per page. YOU CANNOT SEE THE DATES UNTIL YOU OPEN THEM!
I just tried this search a minute ago and here are the dates in order of the first to the ninth (I quit after that, lol).
2010
2012
2002
2007
2002
2011
2009
2007
2008
Given this particular topic, how many are truly relevant today? Two from 2002?!?! Are you kidding me? Gratefully, things have changed so much so fast.
They managed to find 153 titles that were relevant, but they can't put newest to oldest OR AT THE VERY LEAST PUT THE DATE NEXT TO THE POST(!!) so you don't have to open every single one? (No need to get rid of the oldies if they don't want to...it may be interesting to look back and see how far science has come.)
I used to search and give up after opening 10 or 15 and then just have to make a new post. I was concerned that it might aggravate people/veterans to see the same questions from new people every other day. (Honestly, we do try to search first.) I can see where it would become tedious for people/veterans to write their valuable info to new posts over and over (and they can't be on here every day), and a newbie could miss out on that info.
In the long run, the site would have far less posts to store because there would be fewer new posts with the same ole questions day in and day out.
To have to open each one to see the date is ridiculous!!
So what's to be done, OH?!
I just tried this search a minute ago and here are the dates in order of the first to the ninth (I quit after that, lol).
2010
2012
2002
2007
2002
2011
2009
2007
2008
Given this particular topic, how many are truly relevant today? Two from 2002?!?! Are you kidding me? Gratefully, things have changed so much so fast.
They managed to find 153 titles that were relevant, but they can't put newest to oldest OR AT THE VERY LEAST PUT THE DATE NEXT TO THE POST(!!) so you don't have to open every single one? (No need to get rid of the oldies if they don't want to...it may be interesting to look back and see how far science has come.)
I used to search and give up after opening 10 or 15 and then just have to make a new post. I was concerned that it might aggravate people/veterans to see the same questions from new people every other day. (Honestly, we do try to search first.) I can see where it would become tedious for people/veterans to write their valuable info to new posts over and over (and they can't be on here every day), and a newbie could miss out on that info.
In the long run, the site would have far less posts to store because there would be fewer new posts with the same ole questions day in and day out.
To have to open each one to see the date is ridiculous!!
So what's to be done, OH?!
When I was first diagnosed, I looked online, found old information about interferon tx, before it was pegalated, the three shot a week tx, which did nothing but scare me.
It would certainly have helped, if I'd known there was an improved, newer treatment.
Can you imagine, a future time, when a scared person recently diagnosed sees threads about side effects for a treatment that isn't in use anymore?
Is this worth keeping old posts for entertainment ?
I think archiving them and or making the date more obvious is very important.
It would certainly have helped, if I'd known there was an improved, newer treatment.
Can you imagine, a future time, when a scared person recently diagnosed sees threads about side effects for a treatment that isn't in use anymore?
Is this worth keeping old posts for entertainment ?
I think archiving them and or making the date more obvious is very important.
My 2 cents...... I think one of the strengths of MH is it's age, it's quantity of posts and it's relative depth of intelligent posters who have taken the time to put their thoughts to print. Why would one want to take steps to limit the information available?
Bill posted a great link in which there were many great responses, many valuable expressions from many in some cases bygone members. Frankly, in some cases the old discussions may have equal or greater value as current ones.
I'd hate to see the access limited and I would also question if newer posts are any more factual than some old ones. If there IS a change then it is worth supplementing a thread w/ updated info if it should rise to the top forum. Myself, I read for ideas as much as I do for "facts".
willy
Bill posted a great link in which there were many great responses, many valuable expressions from many in some cases bygone members. Frankly, in some cases the old discussions may have equal or greater value as current ones.
I'd hate to see the access limited and I would also question if newer posts are any more factual than some old ones. If there IS a change then it is worth supplementing a thread w/ updated info if it should rise to the top forum. Myself, I read for ideas as much as I do for "facts".
willy
Maybe Med Help could creat a section called archives and all threads that started over 2 years ago or 3 years ago could be in the archives. I know we have archives already, but the idea I have is that when searching just the regular threads (the newer ones) only threads starting within the last 2 to 3 years would come up. If the person wanted to search the archives (all of the threads (older than 2-3 years) they would have to go to a specially marked tab or bar that specifically said "Search Archives - posts older than 2 years." That might cut down on the number of old thread that come up.
Of course it isn't up to us how medhelp sets up the forum.
However, we can offer our opinion.
Personally, I'd like to see a lot of the old posts go but they may not want to do that.
Obviously doing searches by date, would help us.
Maybe we could we suggest something to replace the hourglass by the date making it more obvious, especially to newbies?
What if anything older than say, 2 years had a larger words in color, that say 'archive' on it?
Any ideas ?
However, we can offer our opinion.
Personally, I'd like to see a lot of the old posts go but they may not want to do that.
Obviously doing searches by date, would help us.
Maybe we could we suggest something to replace the hourglass by the date making it more obvious, especially to newbies?
What if anything older than say, 2 years had a larger words in color, that say 'archive' on it?
Any ideas ?
You got a lot of responses, so I won't be reading all of them. Just want to say that I agree whole heartedly! These old posts have got to go!!
They're very confusing and misleading for new members and especially those that don't know much about new treatments. I'd hate for them to get the wrong information....Information that is sooooo outdated now!
Thanks for bringing this to MedHelp's attention.
They're very confusing and misleading for new members and especially those that don't know much about new treatments. I'd hate for them to get the wrong information....Information that is sooooo outdated now!
Thanks for bringing this to MedHelp's attention.
You are reading content posted in the Hepatitis Social Community
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
