The Hornig/Lipkin cytokine study is out! Let's light up the internet with calls for biomed research!
- Thread starter Sasha
- Start date
Never Give Up
Collecting improvements, until there's a cure.
- Messages
- 971
http://www.familypracticenews.com/n...yndrome/71bc1a142abbbf3e518e9a39cc7d30ff.html
Commentable with registration.
Commentable with registration.
Kati
Patient in training
- Messages
- 5,497
It's interesting that Canada has not covered much of this story, I wonder if Canada has a science medica center too?
Kati
Patient in training
- Messages
- 5,497
Done!
Nice comment, great job!
Kati
Patient in training
- Messages
- 5,497
It published already? I thought it was being moderated
Well, I can see it and it says it's by 'Kati'!
Kati
Patient in training
- Messages
- 5,497
That would be me...
These two articles were the top health story on Google News' health section. I don't use Google to search health stories, so top ranking wasn't because of my search history. I don't know how Google News picks its top stories.
Both of these stories are commentable.
Earlier in the day, this was the top Google News health story:
http://www.georgiaworld.com/news/a-test-for-chronic-fatigue-syndrome.aspx
Later in the day, this was the top Google News health story (be warned, the title is awful, but the article is much better than its title would suggest):
http://www.utahpeoplespost.com/2015...ome-not-myth-study-finds-physiological-cause/
For those who don't already know: If you like a particular story on CFS/ME and would like to increase its ranking in a Google, Bing or Yahoo search, search for the specific article and click the search result link to go through to the article. Higher-ranked articles in search results generally appear on the first page of search. Each subsequent page generally has lower-ranking stories. There are ways some sites get around these rules, but if they are caught, they are publicly exposed and banished to very low rankings. This is helpful to know, because if there are better-written, more accurate and more positive articles about ME/CFS on the first page of Google, Bing, Yahoo searches, those are the stories that are most-likely to be read.
The NYT article on this study (posted by @Scarecrow in the thread yesterday) is now both the top story viewed and the top story emailed within the Health section on the New York Times. To see the rankings, scroll down in the Health section and look on the right-side of the page.
Both of these stories are commentable.
Earlier in the day, this was the top Google News health story:
http://www.georgiaworld.com/news/a-test-for-chronic-fatigue-syndrome.aspx
Later in the day, this was the top Google News health story (be warned, the title is awful, but the article is much better than its title would suggest):
http://www.utahpeoplespost.com/2015...ome-not-myth-study-finds-physiological-cause/
For those who don't already know: If you like a particular story on CFS/ME and would like to increase its ranking in a Google, Bing or Yahoo search, search for the specific article and click the search result link to go through to the article. Higher-ranked articles in search results generally appear on the first page of search. Each subsequent page generally has lower-ranking stories. There are ways some sites get around these rules, but if they are caught, they are publicly exposed and banished to very low rankings. This is helpful to know, because if there are better-written, more accurate and more positive articles about ME/CFS on the first page of Google, Bing, Yahoo searches, those are the stories that are most-likely to be read.
The NYT article on this study (posted by @Scarecrow in the thread yesterday) is now both the top story viewed and the top story emailed within the Health section on the New York Times. To see the rankings, scroll down in the Health section and look on the right-side of the page.
Last edited:
SOC
Senior Member
- Messages
- 7,849
There are a lot of articles listed here. 
We want to highlight the best ones -- get them to the top of the search ratings. That means searching the titles and clicking on the found link (as @oceiv) said above. OTOH, we don't really want to give a lot of traffic to the bad ones.
Are people who read these articles willing to give a quick rating (A-F?) so the rest of us know whether to give a particular article a boost or not?
While we need to correct misinformation in bad articles, we have to be careful about giving more attention to bad behavior than to good. Any attention is good attention in some media books and we don't want to encourage those who write garbage.
I see a two-pronged goal here:
1) we want to encourage sound, scientific, sympathetic writers to keep writing on the topic... and their editors to want to publish such articles, and
2) we want people who search to learn more about SEID to find the most accurate and informative articles.
How best to accomplish these goals?
We want to highlight the best ones -- get them to the top of the search ratings. That means searching the titles and clicking on the found link (as @oceiv) said above. OTOH, we don't really want to give a lot of traffic to the bad ones.
Are people who read these articles willing to give a quick rating (A-F?) so the rest of us know whether to give a particular article a boost or not?
While we need to correct misinformation in bad articles, we have to be careful about giving more attention to bad behavior than to good. Any attention is good attention in some media books and we don't want to encourage those who write garbage.
I see a two-pronged goal here:
1) we want to encourage sound, scientific, sympathetic writers to keep writing on the topic... and their editors to want to publish such articles, and
2) we want people who search to learn more about SEID to find the most accurate and informative articles.
How best to accomplish these goals?
Well spotted! Just commented on both.
There are a lot of articles listed here.
We want to highlight the best ones -- get them to the top of the search ratings. That means searching the titles and clicking on the found link (as @oceiv) said above. OTOH, we don't really want to give a lot of traffic to the bad ones.
Are people who read these articles willing to give a quick rating (A-F?) so the rest of us know whether to give a particular article a boost or not?
While we need to correct misinformation in bad articles, we have to be careful about giving more attention to bad behavior than to good. Any attention is good attention in some media books and we don't want to encourage those who write garbage.
I see a two-pronged goal here:
1) we want to encourage sound, scientific, sympathetic writers to keep writing on the topic... and their editors to want to publish such articles, and
2) we want people who search to learn more about SEID to find the most accurate and informative articles.
How best to accomplish these goals?
Good points - for (2) I think we need a new thread (when we're ready) listing the good articles with a title that says something like, 'Click through to these good Hornig/Lipkin articles to give them traffic and get more of them!'
For (1), if there's bad info, I think we need to point it out and say in the comment that there's a big audience for articles on this where the writer understands the issue, and a well-networked community who will funnel attention to it.
Kati
Patient in training
- Messages
- 5,497
Twitter is goot to target congressmen, members of parliament, public health agency, HHS, etc.
Bob
Senior Member
- Messages
- 16,455
- Location
- England (south coast)
I've only read the New Yorker article. It's a good one, for the good list:
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/chronic-fatigue-syndrome-iom-report
If we're giving them scores, i think I'd give it an A (but I'd need to re-read to be sure)
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/chronic-fatigue-syndrome-iom-report
If we're giving them scores, i think I'd give it an A (but I'd need to re-read to be sure)
SOC
Senior Member
- Messages
- 7,849
It's important that we go beyond "clicking through" on the very best articles. We want to use the power of search engines to our advantage. We want the best articles to come out on top when someone (journalist, politician, your grandmother) does a search.
Someone who knows more about these things can hopefully give better information than I can at how to utilize this resource, but I think we need to make a concerted effort to use search engines to find the best articles (even though we know they're there) and click on the result to get search engines to give more priority/value to those articles. Am I right? Anyone here up to speed on how search engines work?
Someone who knows more about these things can hopefully give better information than I can at how to utilize this resource, but I think we need to make a concerted effort to use search engines to find the best articles (even though we know they're there) and click on the result to get search engines to give more priority/value to those articles. Am I right? Anyone here up to speed on how search engines work?
Offhand, the three articles I'd rate an A were NYT, The New Yorker and AFP article on Yahoo UK (I think you might have posted the last link originally):
NYT:
Direct link: thttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/health/chronic-fatigue-syndrome-study-findings-may-lead-to-diagnostic-tool.html
Search for this title in your favorite search engine: Study on Chronic Fatigue May Help With Diagnoses
Journalist: David Tuller, a long-time writer on ME/CFS
The New Yorker
Direct link: http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/chronic-fatigue-syndrome-iom-report
Search for this title in your favorite search engine: A New Name, and Wider Recognition, for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
Author: Meghan O'Rourke who is working on a book about chronic illnesses
AFP wire article on Yahoo U.S. and UK
Direct links:
UK: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/blood-biomarkers-found-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-194057136.html#W0mTyvP
US: http://news.yahoo.com/blood-biomarkers-found-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-194057315.html
Search for this title in your favorite search engine:
Blood biomarkers found for chronic fatigue syndrome
(only the U.S. Yahoo story came up for me, but I have to try in other search engines)
No Journalist listed Wire service articles sometimes list the journalist(s), some do not.
Offhand, the worst article was Reuters: lots of mistakes and very negative tone/attitude toward the illness. Not commentable.
I do think there's value in posting corrective comment since it's much easier to influence readers before they form permanent false ideas about the illness. There is some value in in focusing on the bad, so to speak. Especially because our families, friends and doctors will see the false info. False info translates badly in our daily lives. So many interesting comments above, I hope to be able to come back to this thread, later.
Last edited:
Purple
Bundle of purpliness
- Messages
- 489
Something that search engines like and seem to respond to quickly is 'being social' - so it is always good to share the good articles on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, retweet and repost, even click 'Like' or favourite a tweet when someone else shares the good articles on social media.
I know the algorithms for search engines are kept super-secret, but are the rankings of any given article increasing just because of social mentions/likes or more because articles that get shared get more reads due to that sharing?