Datasets:

ChuGyouk

/

StackExchange-Medical

like 1

[ { "answer_id": 45513, "author": "Thomas Markov", "author_id": 34721, "author_profile": "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/34721", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "<h3>There are several things that are more likely to cause DOMS than systemically low test.</h3>\n<p>In no particular order:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>insufficient sleep</li>\n<li>insufficient protein</li>\n<li>a calorie deficit</li>\n<li>high life stress</li>\n<li>excessive accumulated fatigue from training</li>\n<li>dietary deficiency of antioxidants</li>\n<li>training dose is too high</li>\n<li>novelty of exercise</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Some of these things can cause a temporary drop in testosterone levels, such as sleep/stress/fatigue, but we wouldn’t look at that and blame low test for your soreness. We’d blame the things causing the soreness and the low test.</p>\n<p>But could low test cause muscle soreness? Possibly. Women have low test and aren’t more prone to soreness. In fact, women are probably better suited to recovery from exercise than men. Why? Estrogen. Estrogen is important for muscle recovery. Women produce it directly, men produce via aromatization of testosterone, and low test might lead to less aromatization, which could effect recovery. But I would look at fixing common causes of low test as mentioned above, before looking at testosterone as the actual problem.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 45514, "author": "gustafc", "author_id": 32817, "author_profile": "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/32817", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<blockquote>\n<p>Is it due to the fact that I am big thus my muscules requires a longer recovery time? Or sign of low testosterone?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>If you think you might be suffering from &quot;low-t&quot; I'd advice you to visit a doctor rather than asking strangers online. Having said that, <a href=\"https://www.urologyhealth.org/urology-a-z/l/low-testosterone\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">commonly described symptoms of low testosterone</a> do not seem to include higher susceptibility to DOMS. So, it's probably something else.</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12617692/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">We know annoyingly little about DOMS</a>, both cause and cure. One thing that is known is that <a href=\"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eccentric_training\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">eccentric exercises</a> tend to cause more DOMS, though, so if you focus on the eccentric phase you may want to rethink that (assuming your DOMS is a problem to you - it's not harmful in and of itself).</p>\n<p>And yes, you <em>should</em> experience less and less DOMS the more you train.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Would stretching routines alleviate the pain or do I need to eat more protein? Will incorporating ice cold baths diminish the pain—in keeping with routines of athletes?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>I <a href=\"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24552795/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">wouldn't bother with ice baths since they can actually be negative for your training results</a>, and <a href=\"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8451526/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">stretching can cause DOMS</a> <a href=\"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2489863/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">rather than cure it</a>. Personally, I've experienced good results with sauna after workouts, as well as adding protein supplements - but it may well have been something else that helped, for all I know. (Nevertheless, a sauna is always nice, and protein is generally good for your gains, so no loss for me there.)</p>\n<p>Science suggests you <a href=\"https://www.strongerbyscience.com/doms/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">might get somewhat less DOMS from caffeine, taurine and Omega-3</a>, and <a href=\"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16284637/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">massage</a> and <a href=\"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16604130/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">light exercise</a> can alleviate the pain.</p>\n<p>Your DOMS could also be general fatigue. Are you eating enough (not just protein, but calories and nutrients in general)? Do you experience a lot of stress? Do you sleep enough?</p>\n<p>Without knowing your training schedule, is hard to give more advice than &quot;see what happens if you lower the training volume and then increase it gradually&quot; - working out 3-4 times a week, you don't need to give absolutely everything you've got when you're training. If your strength training consists of full-body workouts, you could try changing to an upper/lower body split to give your muscles more time to recover.</p>\n<p><strong>Edit:</strong> from the comments...</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>How can athletes compete twice a week, train almost every other day, have insufficient levels of rest but still manage to recover insanely quickly? They tend to incorporate ice baths and do stretching and massages as part of their routines as advised by the best sports scientists. There’s surely something to learn from their routine</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Yes and no. Professional athletes have their sports for their job, and they most likely have very good genetics for recovery, so looking at what they do isn't necessarily a good idea for us amateurs. If you're willing to spend all your time on training, you care about the absolute results, not the time it takes to get there. Having a day job, you're probably more interested in how to get the best results from spending e.g. 5-6h/week on training.</p>\n<p>Let's break this down:</p>\n<p><em>How can athletes compete twice a week...</em> - far from all do; but yes, I guess some, like football players, do. They are competing against other teams which have played about as many games, so they are all equally worn down. You don't need to be best team in the world, or even at your best, to win, you just need to be best team in the match. Also, they do tend to get injured quite a lot...</p>\n<p><em>... train almost every other day...</em> - I'd say they train more than every other day, but then again, professional athletes will have worked very hard for many years to reach a high level of training volume tolerance. They also didn't start from zero and jumped into an elite training program; volume has increased gradually, and they adapt the volume to how much they can recover. There's the &quot;stimulate, don't annihilate&quot; strategy - better to have a high volume of relatively light training (from their perspective), than low volume of high-intensity training. To those of us who have a day job, this yields poor return on time spent.</p>\n<p><em>... have insufficient levels of rest but still manage to recover insanely quickly?</em> From what I gather, professional athletes take sleep and recovery time very seriously. They are almost always close to the edge of what they can recover from, but they have coaches, doctors and other staff who can make sure they don't end up on the wrong side. Again, this is a full-time job to them, and they (and their team) know what they can handle.</p>\n<p><em>They tend to incorporate ice baths and do stretching and massages as part of their routines as advised by the best sports scientists.</em></p>\n<ul>\n<li>Concerning ice baths, from what I gather it was a fad a bunch of years ago, which has long since peaked. The <a href=\"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24552795/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">study I linked</a> does show it can reduce DOMS, but at the same time reduce the efficiency of training (so basically it reduces the time needed for recovery because there's less to recover from). If you're playing an important game tomorrow, this might be a good trade-off, but as a nonprofessional, I want the maximum results from the time I spend in the gym. Waste of time to do a heavier workout than I can recover from, just to partially nullify it to aid recovery.</li>\n<li>Massage does indeed seem to help against DOMS <em>when it's already there</em>, but it doesn't prevent it.</li>\n<li>Stretching doesn't help against DOMS, but it can increase mobility. I'm not saying you shouldn't stretch, but it won't help with the DOMS.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>I'd guess that DOMS is a relatively small problem to professional athletes, compared to fatigue management.</p>\n<p>Finally, remember that not all things professional athletes do is backed by scientific evidence, but quite often chosen arbitrarily by them or their coach, based on their experiences and biases. This doesn't mean it doesn't work, but if no conclusive evidence has been found despite studies, it probably won't do much difference to the vast majority of people (or even to anyone).</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/45512", "https://fitness.stackexchange.com", "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/38699/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 45520, "author": "Piper", "author_id": 33473, "author_profile": "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/33473", "pm_score": 4, "selected": true, "text": "<p>After you give birth, it is incredibly important to approach your recovery just as that—recovery. Your body has gone through trauma and needs to heal with time and therapy</p>\n<h2>What happened to your core?</h2>\n<p>When we are pregnant, our belly grows, and as our belly grows our abdominal wall thins to allow for enough space for the baby. This creates a weaker core and the muscles begin to drift and separate, known as Diastasis Recti (DR). Everyone has a different experience and a different degree of DR that presents after child birth.</p>\n<p>Your pelvic floor is also affected after childbirth. It has been holding the weight of a child for ~9 months and needs to be cared for and strengthened</p>\n<h2>Rebuilding the Core</h2>\n<p>It is important to first repair the mind muscle connection with your core. This can be done by practicing <a href=\"http://take2health.com.au/using-the-diaphragm-to-breathe-360-breathing/#:%7E:text=This%20way%20of%20breathing%20allows,our%20side%20ribs%20and%20back.\" rel=\"noreferrer\">360 breathing</a>. Locating a neutral spine, finding your pelvic floor, and making your body build back the previously natural habit of how and when to engage your core when breathing.</p>\n<p>Next you can start to work on your deep core. Start to engage your pelvic floor with your 360 breathing. From there you'll work to engage more of your body. Think of engaging one more item as a time, starting close to your pelvic floor. So, glutes, then lower abs. At this point, all work should be done on your back with your extremities on the ground (like heel slides). Hold your core as you perform your exercises. Make sure your lower back is connected with the floor, your core is engaged, and you have no coning. If all of these aren't happening, take a break and try and later. After you have mastered this, you will start to engage legs, arms (think dead bug), and eventually be able to move off your back and into a quadruped position.</p>\n<p>Please do plenty of research. There are a lot of great programs such as <a href=\"https://getmomstrong.com/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Get Mom Strong</a> online if you wish to work on this in your own home. You can also get a referral to a Physical Therapist who specializes in the pelvic floor and DR and will build a program based on your evaluation.</p>\n<h2>Finally</h2>\n<p>This is a LONG process. Do not rush. Back pain, incontinence, and prolapsed uterus are NOT normal and typically symptoms of a weak deep core. Once your core is strong, this is when you can start to add more full body training such as running, sports, weightlifting, etc.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 45534, "author": "Chloe Lanese", "author_id": 38705, "author_profile": "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/38705", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>While I have not been pregnant I would assume exercises such a hip thrusts and RDLs (Romanian Deadlifts) would be most beneficial to strengthen your abdominal muscles as well as your pelvic floor during the postpartum. I would recommend easing into them by using light weights and a bar pad/yoga mat wrapped around the bar just so the bar itself isn't putting pressure on your hips. Take these exercises slowly and focus on your breathing, breathing out as you perform the exercise. I hope this helps.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/45518", "https://fitness.stackexchange.com", "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/38692/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 45537, "author": "Thomas Markov", "author_id": 34721, "author_profile": "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/34721", "pm_score": 4, "selected": true, "text": "<h3>VO2 max can be preserved with a third of your previous volume.</h3>\n<p>VO2 max is the typical measure used in research for quantifying aerobic endurance - it is the maximal rate of oxygen consumption attainable during exercise. I've going to cite two studies, though there are plenty more, that have found that as much as a two thirds reduction in training volume preserves VO2 max adaptations.</p>\n<p>The first study, &quot;Reduced training frequencies and maintenance of increased aerobic power&quot;¹, put subjects through a 6 days/week training protocol for ten weeks, then split groups into four day and two day groups for an additional fifteen weeks, assessing VO2 max at 0 weeks, 10 weeks, and five week intervals for the 15 weeks of maintenance. Quoting from their abstract, they found:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>VO2max in the 4 d/wk and 2 d/wk groups remained essentially the same as the trained levels when determined at 5-wk intervals of reduced training. These results provide evidence that more exercise is required to increase VO2max, than that required to maintain it at the trained level in young adults performing high-intensity exercise. Furthermore, it is possible to maintain the increased VO2max for at least 15 wk by training at high intensity for 2 d/wk or 4 d/wk.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>So the group that went from running 6 days a week to 2 days a week was able to preserve VO2 max for 15 weeks, running only one third the previous total volume at the same intensity.</p>\n<p>The next study gives it away in their title, &quot;Reduced training volume and intensity maintain aerobic capacity but not performance in distance runners&quot;²:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Ten well-conditioned males (VO2max = 63.4 +/- 1.3 ml.kg-1 x min-1) underwent 4 wks of base training (BT) at their accustomed training distance (71.8 +/- 3.6 km.wk-1) and intensity (76% of total distance &gt; 70% VO2max). Training volume (-66%), frequency (-50%), and intensity (all running &lt; 70% VO2max) were then decreased for a 4 wk reduced training period (RT).</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This group also cut volume by two thirds, and even trained at reduced intensity, and found:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Treadmill VO2max was unchanged with RT (p &gt; 0.05) as were resting plasma volume, estimated from haemoglobin and haematocrit levels, and resting heart rate (HR). Submaximal treadmill exercise VO2 (l.min-1), ventilation and HR were also unchanged.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>However, they did find a slight decline in 5k performance:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Five km race completion time significantly increased from 16.6 +/- 0.3 mins at week 4 of BT to 16.8 +/- 0.3 mins (12 seconds) at week 4 of RT. Nine of the 10 subjects were slower after RT. It is concluded that aerobic capacity was maintained in these runners, despite the combined reduction in training volume and intensity. However, it appears that training intensity during RT is important for the maintenance of 5 km running performance.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>If you want to stay in race shape, you have to keep your intensity up, but you can maintain the aerobic adaptations you've gained with a two thirds reduction on total volume.</p>\n<p>A note about terminology, &quot;volume&quot; here just refers to your total distance, &quot;intensity&quot; refers to your average pace over that distance, and &quot;frequency&quot; refers to the number of sessions per week.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>^{1 <a href=\"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7219129/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Hickson RC, Rosenkoetter MA. Reduced training frequencies and maintenance of increased aerobic power. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1981;13(1):13-6. PMID: 7219129.</a>}</p>\n<p>^{2 <a href=\"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8440543/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">McConell GK, Costill DL, Widrick JJ, Hickey MS, Tanaka H, Gastin PB. Reduced training volume and intensity maintain aerobic capacity but not performance in distance runners. Int J Sports Med. 1993 Jan;14(1):33-7. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-1021142. PMID: 8440543.</a>}</p>\n<h4>Further reading, featuring similar findings:</h4>\n<ul>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36017396/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Zheng J, Pan T, Jiang Y, Shen Y. Effects of Short- and Long-Term Detraining on Maximal Oxygen Uptake in Athletes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Biomed Res Int. 2022 Aug 16;2022:2130993. doi: 10.1155/2022/2130993. PMID: 36017396; PMCID: PMC9398774.</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2692122/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Neufer PD. The effect of detraining and reduced training on the physiological adaptations to aerobic exercise training. Sports Med. 1989 Nov;8(5):302-20. doi: 10.2165/00007256-198908050-00004. PMID: 2692122.</a></p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n" }, { "answer_id": 45550, "author": "Nobody", "author_id": 26156, "author_profile": "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/26156", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I think those studies might be misleading because</p>\n<ul>\n<li>they measure VO2max which isn't actually related that closely to how far you can run - for example if your knees used to hurt after a certain distance and with training now they don't anymore, that's completely unrelated to VO2max.</li>\n<li>they were done with people who were really top fit, in one study they were doing 6 trainings per week, in the other we know they started out at 70km per week before reducing the volume. The relative proportions of the exercise needed might translate to you, or they might not.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>It's hard to be specific without knowing your summer training habits. But considering your distance record is 11km and not long ago you were not able to go further than 4km, I can guess. I think if you want to do short trainings of 30 minutes in winter (so the cold bothers you less), then two times per week is very likely to be enough to improve your running fitness and one time per week enough to maintain it.</p>\n<p>The best would be if you can measure your performance and just try it out. Maybe you have a fancy sports watch that tracks your progress, or you can get creative with a stopwatch (or a stopwatch app on your phone). For example you could measure how long it takes you to run 3 laps of a running track, or one time around the block where you live. And then repeat that once per month to check your month to month progress.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/45536", "https://fitness.stackexchange.com", "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/33473/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 45541, "author": "David Scarlett", "author_id": 25681, "author_profile": "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/25681", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<blockquote>\n<p>If the eccentric part of motion is what gets you sore and, in turn, drives your gains (at least, hypertrophy-wise)</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This is not a correct assumption. <a href=\"https://https://doi.org/10.1519/SSC.0b013e3182a61820\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Muscle soreness is not a valid predictor of hypertrophy</a>, and so while the eccentric part of exercise is mostly responsible for DOMS, that doesn't mean that it is mostly responsible for hypertrophy. In practice, <a href=\"https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001983\" rel=\"noreferrer\">both eccentric-only and concentric-only exercise cause similar amounts of hypertrophy</a>.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>should I really pay attention to how I get those dumbbells up as long as I am mindful of how they go down (slowly)?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>You don't need to lower the weight slowly in order to work the muscles eccentrically. You just need to control it using the target muscles, rather than stopping the weight at the bottom by slamming it into the ground or your body. In fact, lifting faster and using momentum is arguably better.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 45542, "author": "Dan Roberts", "author_id": 38668, "author_profile": "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/38668", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>David Scarlett is correct in that soreness is not an indicator of hypertrophy but I do think that it's worth calling out that there are knowledgeable people who utilise and recommend &quot;cheat&quot; movements in particular circumstances.</p>\n<p>For example, Jeff Cavaliere of <a href=\"https://www.youtube.com/c/athleanx\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Athlean-X (a YouTube Channel)</a> recommends the &quot;barbell cheat curl&quot; in a <a href=\"https://youtu.be/iGYeHsgb4CY\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">video</a> that is summarised in this [Men's Health article] (<a href=\"https://www.menshealth.com/fitness/a30687831/athlean-x-biceps-arm-workout/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">https://www.menshealth.com/fitness/a30687831/athlean-x-biceps-arm-workout/</a>).</p>\n<p>The summary in this particular case is:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>&quot;We want to take advantage of the fact that our muscles are stronger eccentrically than they are concentrically .. So if we can get that weight up via a little bit of a cheat, then we can overload the eccentric, which is a known stimulus for hypertrophy&quot;</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>But also:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Use the cheat curl sparingly in your training, maybe twice a month.. &quot;You\ndon't want to abuse this move.. Used correctly, it can overload your biceps. Used too frequently, it can create shoulder issues because it does involve your shoulders more than you think when you're cheating up the lift.&quot;</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>From personal experience, I like the barbell curl exercise but will sometimes cheat the last rep or two if I am getting fatigued and want to add a little extra volume. In these cases, I tend to perform the eccentric even more slowly - but this is very possibly more psychology than science, since part of the drive to do so is to convince myself that I've not missed out too much by cheating the concentric a little!</p>\n<p>More details in another <a href=\"https://www.menshealth.com/fitness/a26043762/build-muscle-cheat-reps/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Men's Health article here</a>. And I'm sure that I've heard AlphaDestiny (another <a href=\"https://www.youtube.com/c/AlphaDestiny\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">YouTube channel</a>) talk about using a little cheating on dumbbell rows and that is echoed in this <a href=\"https://www.t-nation.com/training/are-cheat-reps-worth-it/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">T-Nation article</a> (under &quot;Good cheat exercises&quot;).</p>\n<p><strong>To conclude:</strong> cheat reps have their place but you need to think carefully about how and when to incorporate them <em>and you need to make sure that you're doing them safely since they are, by definition, more weight than you can handle</em>.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/45540", "https://fitness.stackexchange.com", "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/32851/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 45546, "author": "Dan Roberts", "author_id": 38668, "author_profile": "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/38668", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I don't think that your body <em>can</em> burn more calories to keep itself cooler, it's not like an air conditioning system that can actively cool. It can actively heat, itself of course, but that's directly generating heat energy and there isn't a &quot;cold energy&quot; that can be generated by mammals - unlike with the use of refrigerants and electricity!</p>\n<p>The first article that came back for me in a Google search is in <a href=\"https://www.womenshealthmag.com/fitness/a19932907/sweating-during-exercise/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Women's Health Mag</a> and says:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Think your workout was extra hard because you're drenched in sweat? Tbh I did, but that’s not always the case... sweating does not burn calories. Nor does it burn fat or offer a sign of exercise intensity</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>You are correct that it can result in a weight reduction through water weight, which is very rarely desirable. One counterexample is when fighters need to &quot;cut weight&quot; before competing - the day before the fight, they must not exceed the maximum weight for their weight division and it's common practice to (quite severely, in many cases) deplete themselves of water so that they can achieve this figure. There are many methods that may be utilised but exercising or sitting in a steam room with layers of clothes can force a lot of water to be lost. Apparently (according to this <a href=\"https://qr.ae/pv4nRJ\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">answer to a Quora question</a>) it's not unusual for a fighter to immediately put 10-15lb back on in water weight between the weigh-in and the fight itself.</p>\n<p>Losing water weight does not contribute to fat loss, though, and trying to exercise when dehydrated (or even when too hot) will have a negative effect on your performance.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 45547, "author": "Thomas Markov", "author_id": 34721, "author_profile": "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/34721", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<h3>The affect of heat stress on metabolic rate during exercise is unclear, but performance is likely to be impaired.</h3>\n<p>Chapter 3 of <a href=\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK236240/\" rel=\"noreferrer\"><em>Nutritional Needs in Hot Environments: Applications for Military Personnel in Field Operations</em></a>¹ gives a narrative review of the state of the literature on this question (as of 1993, yeah, it's old, I'll do more research into recent studies). In the section on metabolism, the authors report:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Acute heat stress increases resting metabolic rate (Consolazio et al., 1961, 1963; Dimri et al., 1980), but the effect of heat stress on an individual's metabolic rate for performing a given submaximal exercise task is not so clear (see Table 3-1). Such an effect would influence the calculation of the heat balance and might have implications for the nutritional requirements of individuals exposed to hot environments. Many investigators report that to perform a given submaximal exercise task, the metabolic rate is greater in a hot than temperate environment (Consolazio et al., 1961, 1963; Dimri et al., 1980; Fink et al., 1975). Some investigators, however, report lower metabolic rates in the heat (Brouha et al., 1960; Petersen and Vejby-Christensen, 1973; Williams et al., 1962; Young et al., 1985). Heat acclimation state does not account for whether individuals demonstrate an increased or decreased metabolic rate during submaximal exercise in the heat. However, other mechanisms can explain this discrepancy. Most investigators have only calculated the aerobic metabolic rate during submaximal exercise, ignoring the contribution of anaerobic metabolism to total metabolic rate.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>So the findings reported here range from &quot;reduced metabolic rate&quot; to &quot;no change&quot; to &quot;increased metabolic rate&quot;.</p>\n<p>However, <em>the evidence is more clear that performance is likely to be impaired</em>. In this same narrative review, studies testing VO2 Max under heat stress conditions were examined, and the results are much more homogeneous than those for metabolic rate: maximum oxygen uptake is impaired under high temperature conditions. So if performance in a given workout is important to you, that is, the adaptations you are selecting for in a given training bout are contingent upon your performance during exercise, working in conditions that impair VO2 Max are going to be suboptimal.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>^{1 <a href=\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK236240/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Military Nutrition Research; Marriott BM, editor. Nutritional Needs in Hot Environments: Applications for Military Personnel in Field Operations. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1993. 3, Physiological Responses to Exercise in the Heat.</a>}</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/45545", "https://fitness.stackexchange.com", "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/38669/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 45546, "author": "Dan Roberts", "author_id": 38668, "author_profile": "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/38668", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I don't think that your body <em>can</em> burn more calories to keep itself cooler, it's not like an air conditioning system that can actively cool. It can actively heat, itself of course, but that's directly generating heat energy and there isn't a &quot;cold energy&quot; that can be generated by mammals - unlike with the use of refrigerants and electricity!</p>\n<p>The first article that came back for me in a Google search is in <a href=\"https://www.womenshealthmag.com/fitness/a19932907/sweating-during-exercise/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Women's Health Mag</a> and says:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Think your workout was extra hard because you're drenched in sweat? Tbh I did, but that’s not always the case... sweating does not burn calories. Nor does it burn fat or offer a sign of exercise intensity</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>You are correct that it can result in a weight reduction through water weight, which is very rarely desirable. One counterexample is when fighters need to &quot;cut weight&quot; before competing - the day before the fight, they must not exceed the maximum weight for their weight division and it's common practice to (quite severely, in many cases) deplete themselves of water so that they can achieve this figure. There are many methods that may be utilised but exercising or sitting in a steam room with layers of clothes can force a lot of water to be lost. Apparently (according to this <a href=\"https://qr.ae/pv4nRJ\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">answer to a Quora question</a>) it's not unusual for a fighter to immediately put 10-15lb back on in water weight between the weigh-in and the fight itself.</p>\n<p>Losing water weight does not contribute to fat loss, though, and trying to exercise when dehydrated (or even when too hot) will have a negative effect on your performance.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 45547, "author": "Thomas Markov", "author_id": 34721, "author_profile": "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/34721", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<h3>The affect of heat stress on metabolic rate during exercise is unclear, but performance is likely to be impaired.</h3>\n<p>Chapter 3 of <a href=\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK236240/\" rel=\"noreferrer\"><em>Nutritional Needs in Hot Environments: Applications for Military Personnel in Field Operations</em></a>¹ gives a narrative review of the state of the literature on this question (as of 1993, yeah, it's old, I'll do more research into recent studies). In the section on metabolism, the authors report:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Acute heat stress increases resting metabolic rate (Consolazio et al., 1961, 1963; Dimri et al., 1980), but the effect of heat stress on an individual's metabolic rate for performing a given submaximal exercise task is not so clear (see Table 3-1). Such an effect would influence the calculation of the heat balance and might have implications for the nutritional requirements of individuals exposed to hot environments. Many investigators report that to perform a given submaximal exercise task, the metabolic rate is greater in a hot than temperate environment (Consolazio et al., 1961, 1963; Dimri et al., 1980; Fink et al., 1975). Some investigators, however, report lower metabolic rates in the heat (Brouha et al., 1960; Petersen and Vejby-Christensen, 1973; Williams et al., 1962; Young et al., 1985). Heat acclimation state does not account for whether individuals demonstrate an increased or decreased metabolic rate during submaximal exercise in the heat. However, other mechanisms can explain this discrepancy. Most investigators have only calculated the aerobic metabolic rate during submaximal exercise, ignoring the contribution of anaerobic metabolism to total metabolic rate.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>So the findings reported here range from &quot;reduced metabolic rate&quot; to &quot;no change&quot; to &quot;increased metabolic rate&quot;.</p>\n<p>However, <em>the evidence is more clear that performance is likely to be impaired</em>. In this same narrative review, studies testing VO2 Max under heat stress conditions were examined, and the results are much more homogeneous than those for metabolic rate: maximum oxygen uptake is impaired under high temperature conditions. So if performance in a given workout is important to you, that is, the adaptations you are selecting for in a given training bout are contingent upon your performance during exercise, working in conditions that impair VO2 Max are going to be suboptimal.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>^{1 <a href=\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK236240/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Military Nutrition Research; Marriott BM, editor. Nutritional Needs in Hot Environments: Applications for Military Personnel in Field Operations. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1993. 3, Physiological Responses to Exercise in the Heat.</a>}</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/45580", "https://fitness.stackexchange.com", "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/38627/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 45593, "author": "Thomas Markov", "author_id": 34721, "author_profile": "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/34721", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<h3>You are not in an energy deficit.</h3>\n<p>If your weight isn't changing, it means you are not in an energy deficit. While the neurology, endocrinology, and behavioral science of weight loss is very complex and by no means easy to figure out, the physics of it is: a calorie deficit will result in weight loss, and weight loss requires a calorie deficit. If you aren't losing weight, you are not in a calorie deficit, full stop.</p>\n<p>There are any number of explanations for why you <em>think</em> you are in an energy deficit and aren't, but that's not something any of us can figure out for you over the internet. But you are definitely not in a deficit.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 45594, "author": "Dan Roberts", "author_id": 38668, "author_profile": "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/38668", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "<p>It is certainly possible that &quot;the loss in fat [is] being cancelled by gain in muscle mass&quot;. My experience of first going to the gym involved me going consistently three times a week for a ten minute cardio warmup followed by forty minutes of weight training, my diet was only at a &quot;trying to eat quite well&quot; level (I wasn't tracking calories or macros) and for the first three months (possibly six) my weight remained the same. However, there were other measures that showed clear aesthetic progress such as general appearance in the mirror, my t-shirts becoming tight around the chest and shoulders, my having to tighten my belt using a hole further along it - in other words, I got leaner and more muscular despite no change appearing on the scales.</p>\n<p>You will need to be honest with yourself to come to the answer for sure, here. If you have concrete indications of muscle-gain-wth-fat-loss then you may be making good progress. If you don't have any measurable improvements such as these then you may not be making progress.</p>\n<p>It can feel vain taking progress pictures and taking measurements (waist, chest, bicep, etc.) but these can be used to gain really valuable insight. For example, I know that I've been happy with how I look at a particular weight at one time in my life and then less happy with the same weight at another time - due to differences in composition (ie. how much fat and how much muscle was present). Weight is not the complete picture! (On the plus side, if you're weighing yourself regularly and it's not changing then you must be good at weighing yourself at about the same time each day, which is the sort of consistency that you'll want to apply for taking progress pics or measurements!)</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 45771, "author": "richardhp", "author_id": 39161, "author_profile": "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/39161", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Look into insulin resistance and intermittent fasting.</p>\n<p>Generally speaking you can't metabolise fat in the presence of insulin, and insulin is going spike after you eat, esp sugary carbs.</p>\n<p>So if you eat all the time, then your body always has insulin pumping around, so you never burn any fat.</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxl8hhyN6AQ\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxl8hhyN6AQ</a></p>\n" } ]

[ "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/45592", "https://fitness.stackexchange.com", "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/38208/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 45605, "author": "Thomas Markov", "author_id": 34721, "author_profile": "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/34721", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<h3>Change a different variable.</h3>\n<p>The longer you've been training, the longer it takes to see gains, and this is also highly variable between individuals. For this reason, I won't directly answer your question by saying &quot;one week&quot; or &quot;three weeks&quot; or any other time frame.</p>\n<p>However, I will tell you that if you feel like you are hitting a plateau and are unable to increase the particular training variable of choice (in the question, reps per set), then just adjust a different training variable. Instead of trying to increase from six to seven reps, and 5 pounds and stick with six reps. Or instead of trying to do 4x7, do 5x6. There are lots of training variables you can change under this idea of &quot;progressive overload&quot;. You can change the external load (weight on the bar), the internal load (rate of perceived exertion), reps per set, number of sets, weekly frequency, total weekly volume, etc. If changing one of these variable seems to not be working, try progressing a different variable.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 45606, "author": "Dave Liepmann", "author_id": 1771, "author_profile": "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/1771", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<h2>1</h2>\n<p>I ignore any single session of unexpectedly poor performance. That just happens.</p>\n<h2>2</h2>\n<p>I pay close attention any time my chosen progression doesn't work for two workouts in a row. I check my:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>sleep</li>\n<li>diet</li>\n<li>stress</li>\n<li>preparation for the session</li>\n<li>training load</li>\n<li>training program</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Often it's something obvious which is worth fixing but not worrying about, like I drank more alcohol than normal at a wedding, or I went on a long hike the day before, or I was traveling and couldn't feed myself properly for a few days.</p>\n<h2>3</h2>\n<p>If three workouts in a row go poorly without a specific cause then something is not right. At this point a change is probably a good idea even if the cause is not fully understood. (But it's almost always one of the items listed above.)</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 45614, "author": "George Chond", "author_id": 38803, "author_profile": "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/38803", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<blockquote>\n<p>But how do I know that I'm indeed hitting a plateau, that my expectations are reasonable?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Find a strengthlevel website and input your compound lift stats. This will effectively give you an idea of where you stand.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>But what if it's six reps after six reps, after six reps, after six reps...</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>After running for more than 2 years a LP powerlifting routine with compound lifts being in the rep-range of 2-5, I have experienced this feeling quite too many times. Below there are some suggestions that worked for me.</p>\n<h1>Beginner</h1>\n<ol>\n<li><strong>Always keep track of your rests.</strong><br>\nIf your typical rest time is 2mins but you feel tired due to less food or sleep etc., rest more.</li>\n<li><strong>Always keep in mind the bodyweight/lift ratio.</strong><br>\nSupposing you are a natural lifter, it is very normal to struggle e.g. on advancing your bench after ~150% of your bodyweight.</li>\n<li><strong>Set and have clear goals.</strong><br>\nAre you interested in raw strength? Or size? Or a mix of both? Or even endurance? If you focus on raw strength, you shouldn't have too many reps on your sets. Your primary concern should be to shock and adapt your CNS as it is the primary source that will help you advance in moving heavier weights. Your tendons are also a vital point. <a href=\"https://gizmodo.com/the-incredible-hulk-was-inspired-by-a-woman-saving-her-1727562968\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Ever heard of the true story that inspired the creation of Hulk?⁽¹⁾</a></li>\n</ol>\n<h1>Intermediate</h1>\n<ol>\n<li><strong>Focus on what and when you eat.</strong><br>\nGetting stronger is not only moving heavy things. Get enough carbs to fuel your training and enough carbs to recover after it. And of course your protein. And carbs. Also carbs.<br>\n<em>Bonus:</em> Time your meals so that you hit the gym without being either too much bloated or too space-out from your last meal.</li>\n<li><strong>Don't neglect other aspects.</strong><br>\nIf you did not sleep well or enough, if you did not eat enough, if you got really tired from work, if your day was a complete mess, reflect and decide if you want to try really hard in your session. It's not a bad thing to take it lighter when you need to. Just take note and try to avoid overdoing this. This can also give you a reason to not let outside factors determine your next sessions, making you more disciplined.</li>\n</ol>\n<h1>Advanced</h1>\n<ol>\n<li><strong>Get OKAY with facts that you don't like.</strong><br>\nWant to lift heavier and be extra shredded, while being drug-free? Want to slim down while also getting more muscular? Things don't work like that. Your best bet in getting stronger is by building more muscle, which can only be achieved by eating more and risking storing more fat (unless you are a beginner or overweight, in which case you can indeed build muscle while also shedding fat, the so-called &quot;newbie gains&quot;).</li>\n<li><strong>Have Patience.</strong><br>\nThis is so underrated. It took me around 1 year to advance my benching from 164% to 170% of my bodyweight. In this process, my bodyweight increased by ~1.5kg. You need to have patience and trust the process.</li>\n<li><strong>Be Mentality prepared.</strong><br>\nBefore attempting lifting a heavier set, wait for the music part that inspires you the most, &quot;isolate mentally&quot; yourself from the rest of the gym, visualize yourself doing that lift. While it's a fact that your muscles lifting a weight will send signals to your nervous system, this can also be achieved by your <a href=\"https://hubermanlab.com/the-science-of-setting-and-achieving-goals/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">brain by visualizing yourself performing the exercise⁽²⁾</a>.</li>\n</ol>\n<p>Don't rush, be patient, stay consistent, safe and results will show up.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/45604", "https://fitness.stackexchange.com", "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/32851/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 45605, "author": "Thomas Markov", "author_id": 34721, "author_profile": "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/34721", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<h3>Change a different variable.</h3>\n<p>The longer you've been training, the longer it takes to see gains, and this is also highly variable between individuals. For this reason, I won't directly answer your question by saying &quot;one week&quot; or &quot;three weeks&quot; or any other time frame.</p>\n<p>However, I will tell you that if you feel like you are hitting a plateau and are unable to increase the particular training variable of choice (in the question, reps per set), then just adjust a different training variable. Instead of trying to increase from six to seven reps, and 5 pounds and stick with six reps. Or instead of trying to do 4x7, do 5x6. There are lots of training variables you can change under this idea of &quot;progressive overload&quot;. You can change the external load (weight on the bar), the internal load (rate of perceived exertion), reps per set, number of sets, weekly frequency, total weekly volume, etc. If changing one of these variable seems to not be working, try progressing a different variable.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 45606, "author": "Dave Liepmann", "author_id": 1771, "author_profile": "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/1771", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<h2>1</h2>\n<p>I ignore any single session of unexpectedly poor performance. That just happens.</p>\n<h2>2</h2>\n<p>I pay close attention any time my chosen progression doesn't work for two workouts in a row. I check my:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>sleep</li>\n<li>diet</li>\n<li>stress</li>\n<li>preparation for the session</li>\n<li>training load</li>\n<li>training program</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Often it's something obvious which is worth fixing but not worrying about, like I drank more alcohol than normal at a wedding, or I went on a long hike the day before, or I was traveling and couldn't feed myself properly for a few days.</p>\n<h2>3</h2>\n<p>If three workouts in a row go poorly without a specific cause then something is not right. At this point a change is probably a good idea even if the cause is not fully understood. (But it's almost always one of the items listed above.)</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 45614, "author": "George Chond", "author_id": 38803, "author_profile": "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/38803", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<blockquote>\n<p>But how do I know that I'm indeed hitting a plateau, that my expectations are reasonable?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Find a strengthlevel website and input your compound lift stats. This will effectively give you an idea of where you stand.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>But what if it's six reps after six reps, after six reps, after six reps...</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>After running for more than 2 years a LP powerlifting routine with compound lifts being in the rep-range of 2-5, I have experienced this feeling quite too many times. Below there are some suggestions that worked for me.</p>\n<h1>Beginner</h1>\n<ol>\n<li><strong>Always keep track of your rests.</strong><br>\nIf your typical rest time is 2mins but you feel tired due to less food or sleep etc., rest more.</li>\n<li><strong>Always keep in mind the bodyweight/lift ratio.</strong><br>\nSupposing you are a natural lifter, it is very normal to struggle e.g. on advancing your bench after ~150% of your bodyweight.</li>\n<li><strong>Set and have clear goals.</strong><br>\nAre you interested in raw strength? Or size? Or a mix of both? Or even endurance? If you focus on raw strength, you shouldn't have too many reps on your sets. Your primary concern should be to shock and adapt your CNS as it is the primary source that will help you advance in moving heavier weights. Your tendons are also a vital point. <a href=\"https://gizmodo.com/the-incredible-hulk-was-inspired-by-a-woman-saving-her-1727562968\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Ever heard of the true story that inspired the creation of Hulk?⁽¹⁾</a></li>\n</ol>\n<h1>Intermediate</h1>\n<ol>\n<li><strong>Focus on what and when you eat.</strong><br>\nGetting stronger is not only moving heavy things. Get enough carbs to fuel your training and enough carbs to recover after it. And of course your protein. And carbs. Also carbs.<br>\n<em>Bonus:</em> Time your meals so that you hit the gym without being either too much bloated or too space-out from your last meal.</li>\n<li><strong>Don't neglect other aspects.</strong><br>\nIf you did not sleep well or enough, if you did not eat enough, if you got really tired from work, if your day was a complete mess, reflect and decide if you want to try really hard in your session. It's not a bad thing to take it lighter when you need to. Just take note and try to avoid overdoing this. This can also give you a reason to not let outside factors determine your next sessions, making you more disciplined.</li>\n</ol>\n<h1>Advanced</h1>\n<ol>\n<li><strong>Get OKAY with facts that you don't like.</strong><br>\nWant to lift heavier and be extra shredded, while being drug-free? Want to slim down while also getting more muscular? Things don't work like that. Your best bet in getting stronger is by building more muscle, which can only be achieved by eating more and risking storing more fat (unless you are a beginner or overweight, in which case you can indeed build muscle while also shedding fat, the so-called &quot;newbie gains&quot;).</li>\n<li><strong>Have Patience.</strong><br>\nThis is so underrated. It took me around 1 year to advance my benching from 164% to 170% of my bodyweight. In this process, my bodyweight increased by ~1.5kg. You need to have patience and trust the process.</li>\n<li><strong>Be Mentality prepared.</strong><br>\nBefore attempting lifting a heavier set, wait for the music part that inspires you the most, &quot;isolate mentally&quot; yourself from the rest of the gym, visualize yourself doing that lift. While it's a fact that your muscles lifting a weight will send signals to your nervous system, this can also be achieved by your <a href=\"https://hubermanlab.com/the-science-of-setting-and-achieving-goals/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">brain by visualizing yourself performing the exercise⁽²⁾</a>.</li>\n</ol>\n<p>Don't rush, be patient, stay consistent, safe and results will show up.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/45619", "https://fitness.stackexchange.com", "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/38812/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 45634, "author": "Alec", "author_id": 8828, "author_profile": "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/8828", "pm_score": 5, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Most of the real-life movements and lifts we do (i.e. not in the gym), are movements where you have to recruit a bunch of different muscles at once.</p>\n<p>For instance, when you stand up from your bed, lift something to vacuum under it, or hoist a baby-chair out of a car, you're not just using your erector spinae. You're not just using your hips. You're not just using your grip. You're using all of the above, and then some.</p>\n<p>It may seem to be a trivial task, but coordinating all these muscle groups to do their part in the exact right order, to the exact right degree, is something that your central nervous system needs to train.</p>\n<p>Compound exercises such as deadlifts, train all those muscles <em>and</em> your ability to coordinate your muscles to contract correctly and as an ensemble - a team even - rather than individually.</p>\n<p>This is why you'll find the deadlift as a must-do in almost any strength training regimen.</p>\n<p>This is not to say that the exercises you mentioned are worthless. They're all great. And as you do your compound movements, you might spot weaknesses in your ensemble that need to be brought up to speed, and hyperextensions and hip thrusts are key ingredients in keeping their respective muscle groups up-to-date.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 45635, "author": "Dave Liepmann", "author_id": 1771, "author_profile": "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/1771", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "<p>The deadlift is one of the simplest and most effective strength exercises. You don't have to do it but it's one of the best.</p>\n<p>People consistently recommend the deadlift because it is one ideal combination of simplicity and effectiveness. A friend or written program can recommend this one thing, set a target weight to achieve in some number of months, and trust that with consistent effort the result will be transformative. This is true of only a few treasured movements.</p>\n<h2>Simplicity</h2>\n<p>The deadlift is special because it doesn't take much:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>easy to learn</li>\n<li>requires only the most basic general-purpose equipment</li>\n<li>works most of what you want to work\n<ul>\n<li>thus time-efficient</li>\n<li>why do four+ exercises when one does the trick?</li>\n</ul>\n</li>\n<li>setting goals is straightforward\n<ul>\n<li>e.g. &quot;double bodyweight within one year&quot;</li>\n<li>it obeys &quot;the physics of effort&quot;: consistent work over time is clearly rewarded</li>\n</ul>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<p>These qualities make &quot;pick up the barbell&quot; unusually easy to recommend.</p>\n<h2>Effectiveness</h2>\n<p>The deadlift is special because it gives tremendous return on investment:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>allows some of the heaviest loads\n<ul>\n<li>thus maximum effort</li>\n<li>maximum effort is magical</li>\n</ul>\n</li>\n<li>has excellent carry-over to most activities &amp; sports\n<ul>\n<li>not true of most substitutes</li>\n</ul>\n</li>\n<li>nearly impossible to cheat individual reps</li>\n<li>nearly impossible to cheat over time\n<ul>\n<li>you &amp; everyone else can tell</li>\n</ul>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<p>This high return on investment makes the deadlift unusually helpful to recommend.</p>\n<h2>Addendum: Alternatives?</h2>\n<p>None of your proposed alternatives are actually <em>superior</em>, just good <em>alternatives</em>. The back extension in particular is an inadequate substitute for the loads possible with the deadlift.</p>\n<p>Other exercises which come close to the deadlift in simplicity &amp; effectiveness include running, kettlebell swings, power cleans, presses (from the floor, meaning a power clean too), squats, and pull-ups. But notice that each of these lacks one or more useful properties listed above: a kettlebell or pull-up bar is not as general a tool as the barbell, the power clean &amp; press is harder to learn, squats are easier to cheat or do wrong, the list goes on. The deadlift really is arguably in a class of its own for strength.</p>\n<p>I especially like the deadlift because it can't be fooled: it's easy to cheat yourself with most other exercises, doing half reps and or shying away from heavy loads. With the deadlift, there's nowhere to hide.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/45633", "https://fitness.stackexchange.com", "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/32851/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 45634, "author": "Alec", "author_id": 8828, "author_profile": "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/8828", "pm_score": 5, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Most of the real-life movements and lifts we do (i.e. not in the gym), are movements where you have to recruit a bunch of different muscles at once.</p>\n<p>For instance, when you stand up from your bed, lift something to vacuum under it, or hoist a baby-chair out of a car, you're not just using your erector spinae. You're not just using your hips. You're not just using your grip. You're using all of the above, and then some.</p>\n<p>It may seem to be a trivial task, but coordinating all these muscle groups to do their part in the exact right order, to the exact right degree, is something that your central nervous system needs to train.</p>\n<p>Compound exercises such as deadlifts, train all those muscles <em>and</em> your ability to coordinate your muscles to contract correctly and as an ensemble - a team even - rather than individually.</p>\n<p>This is why you'll find the deadlift as a must-do in almost any strength training regimen.</p>\n<p>This is not to say that the exercises you mentioned are worthless. They're all great. And as you do your compound movements, you might spot weaknesses in your ensemble that need to be brought up to speed, and hyperextensions and hip thrusts are key ingredients in keeping their respective muscle groups up-to-date.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 45635, "author": "Dave Liepmann", "author_id": 1771, "author_profile": "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/1771", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "<p>The deadlift is one of the simplest and most effective strength exercises. You don't have to do it but it's one of the best.</p>\n<p>People consistently recommend the deadlift because it is one ideal combination of simplicity and effectiveness. A friend or written program can recommend this one thing, set a target weight to achieve in some number of months, and trust that with consistent effort the result will be transformative. This is true of only a few treasured movements.</p>\n<h2>Simplicity</h2>\n<p>The deadlift is special because it doesn't take much:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>easy to learn</li>\n<li>requires only the most basic general-purpose equipment</li>\n<li>works most of what you want to work\n<ul>\n<li>thus time-efficient</li>\n<li>why do four+ exercises when one does the trick?</li>\n</ul>\n</li>\n<li>setting goals is straightforward\n<ul>\n<li>e.g. &quot;double bodyweight within one year&quot;</li>\n<li>it obeys &quot;the physics of effort&quot;: consistent work over time is clearly rewarded</li>\n</ul>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<p>These qualities make &quot;pick up the barbell&quot; unusually easy to recommend.</p>\n<h2>Effectiveness</h2>\n<p>The deadlift is special because it gives tremendous return on investment:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>allows some of the heaviest loads\n<ul>\n<li>thus maximum effort</li>\n<li>maximum effort is magical</li>\n</ul>\n</li>\n<li>has excellent carry-over to most activities &amp; sports\n<ul>\n<li>not true of most substitutes</li>\n</ul>\n</li>\n<li>nearly impossible to cheat individual reps</li>\n<li>nearly impossible to cheat over time\n<ul>\n<li>you &amp; everyone else can tell</li>\n</ul>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<p>This high return on investment makes the deadlift unusually helpful to recommend.</p>\n<h2>Addendum: Alternatives?</h2>\n<p>None of your proposed alternatives are actually <em>superior</em>, just good <em>alternatives</em>. The back extension in particular is an inadequate substitute for the loads possible with the deadlift.</p>\n<p>Other exercises which come close to the deadlift in simplicity &amp; effectiveness include running, kettlebell swings, power cleans, presses (from the floor, meaning a power clean too), squats, and pull-ups. But notice that each of these lacks one or more useful properties listed above: a kettlebell or pull-up bar is not as general a tool as the barbell, the power clean &amp; press is harder to learn, squats are easier to cheat or do wrong, the list goes on. The deadlift really is arguably in a class of its own for strength.</p>\n<p>I especially like the deadlift because it can't be fooled: it's easy to cheat yourself with most other exercises, doing half reps and or shying away from heavy loads. With the deadlift, there's nowhere to hide.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/45646", "https://fitness.stackexchange.com", "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/33982/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 45701, "author": "Liam Poropat L.", "author_id": 38984, "author_profile": "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/38984", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "<p>It seems like you've got a robust background in distance running and square measure currently wanting to include some totally different coaching parts to enhance your performance within the 800m event. coaching for the 800m may be a touch totally different than coaching for extended distance events, because it involves a mixture of aerobic and anaerobic energy systems and needs a mixture of endurance and speed.</p>\n<p>The coaching parts you've got delineated , like bodybuilding and running stairs, may be helpful for building strength and power, which might be useful for the 800m event. it should even be useful to incorporate some specific 800m-specific workouts in your coaching, like intervals at or slightly quicker than your target race pace, furthermore as some speed work on shorter distances to develop your stride frequency and turnover.</p>\n<p>It's also necessary to contemplate your overall coaching volume and intensity, furthermore as your recovery and nutrition. Adequate recovery and nutrition may be key to maximising your coaching variations and performance.</p>\n<p>It may even be useful to sit down with a certified coach or medicine specialist to assist you style a coaching arrange that's tailored to your specific goals and wishes. they will assist you confirm the simplest mixture of coaching parts and supply steerage on a way to effectively incorporate differing kinds of coaching into your routine to optimize your performance within the 800m event.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 45702, "author": "Mark Field", "author_id": 33212, "author_profile": "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/33212", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>You didn't give us enough detail to evaluate training volume, which might be an issue.</p>\n<p>One exercise you might consider adding (or replacing deadlifts with) would be power cleans -- very good for explosiveness and posterior chain. However, you have to consider this in the context of the rest of your workout.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 45704, "author": "JohnP", "author_id": 3736, "author_profile": "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/3736", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I assume from your statement about training with the sprinters that you have a coach. I will answer what I think might help with the caveat that it may change depending on your answer to my comment. (Also, important - See my addendum at the end of the post)</p>\n<p>There are a few things that can be affecting the drop off as follows:</p>\n<ol>\n<li><p>You are simply not a distance runner. You are fast up to a point, and then simply fall off a cliff. If so, then yes, concentrating on the 4 and 800m and the pentathlon/decathlon might be worth a try.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>You start out too fast and burn yourself out. For example, you drop off 10 seconds in pace between 800 and the mile, and almost 35 seconds per mile in the 5k. That's an indication of poor fitness or going too hard at the beginning.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Volume. You need lots of volume, lots of miles to be sustainably fast at the longer distances. For example, I ran just under 17 mins for the 5k in high school, and between 25-27 minutes for the 8k (5 mile) in college. In his school I was running between 40-60 miles a week, in college it was closer to 90 a week mid season. This is what I suspect is the most likely reason, but may change depending on your workout outline.</p>\n</li>\n</ol>\n<p>There are other items to consider, such as interval and threshold work, how much you weigh vs how tall you are that can also affect times. There is a reason that cross country/distance competitors are all thin.</p>\n<p>My final thing - have you talked these concerns over with your coach? They may have insights about why your times fall off, or where they think your best talents lie. I have other questions (Such as how much training you do on your own in the off season, or if you simply show up and run when the season starts), but those are better suited for chat.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/45655", "https://fitness.stackexchange.com", "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/38894/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 45657, "author": "Thomas Markov", "author_id": 34721, "author_profile": "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/34721", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "<h3>It makes you &quot;weigh&quot; less.</h3>\n<p>The answer here is simple physics. When you run on a treadmill, you still have to propel your body weight up and forward relative to the motion of the belt. When you grab the handles, you are reducing the force required to put into the belt by holding yourself up on the handles. Even if it doesn't feel like you are putting that much weight into the handles, you could be putting twenty or thirty pounds into them without really feeling like you're using them to support yourself, and this makes running substantially easier.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 45658, "author": "Sean Duggan", "author_id": 8039, "author_profile": "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/8039", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>In addition to Markov's answer, the bars provide stabilization, requiring less effort to keep yourself aligned properly. It is, in some ways, similar to how someone might be able to lift more weight in a weight machine, which constrains motion to a particular direction, than they could in the corresponding free lift. Because you have to exert more energy to keep yourself stable, it will require more effort, particularly so if the stabilizing muscles are not ones you're used to exercising.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 45661, "author": "richarjt", "author_id": 38900, "author_profile": "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/38900", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "<p>The greatest factor is an elaboration to Thomas' answer. It isn't just downward force, it is also forward. You do reduce your weight if you push down on the bars, but more importantly you produce tension in your arms between you and the bars. From a physics perspective, that tension is equivalent to the forward force on your body.</p>\n<p>To help visualize it, think of a toy car or wagon tied by rope to the front of the treadmill. It can keep up with the treadmill despite the fact that it cannot even move under its own power. The force to keep up is provided by the tension in the rope. In the case of a human, you need to move your legs to keep yourself suspended but you aren't moving yourself forward, just keeping yourself stable while you are pulled along.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/45656", "https://fitness.stackexchange.com", "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/19630/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 45809, "author": "Thomas Markov", "author_id": 34721, "author_profile": "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/34721", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<h3>Cardio.</h3>\n<p>It's a bit of a meme in powerlifting that powerlifters never do cardio. Don't fall into that trap. The energy demands of compound barbell lifts like the back squat can be significant at higher loads and rep counts, so if you find that back squats are particularly taxing or your intraset recovery times are too long, you likely need to train your work capacity with some cardio.</p>\n<p>This doesn't mean you have to run 20 miles a week. 90 minutes per week of low intensity steady state is probably just fine starting out, titrating that dose up as your cardio-metabolic fitness need increases.</p>\n<p>And no, it is not going to stifle your gains. It will be a net positive since it will increase your capacity to do greater volumes of work. Greg Nuckols at Stronger By Science has written several articles related to this, here they are:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https://www.strongerbyscience.com/research-spotlight-cardio-bigger/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Can cardio (eventually) make you bigger?</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"https://www.strongerbyscience.com/avoiding-cardio-could-be-holding-you-back/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Avoiding Cardio Could Be Holding You Back</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"https://www.strongerbyscience.com/cardio-and-lifting-cardio-wont-hugely-impact-your-gains-in-the-short-run-and-may-be-beneficial-for-strength-and-size-in-the-long-run/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Cardio And Lifting – Cardio Won’t Hugely Impact Your Gains In The Short Run, And May Be Beneficial For Strength And Size In The Long Run</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"https://www.strongerbyscience.com/cardio-hypertrophy/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Cardio Isn’t Going To Kill Your Gains. Need More Evidence? You Got It.</a></li>\n</ul>\n" }, { "answer_id": 45810, "author": "Dave Liepmann", "author_id": 1771, "author_profile": "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/1771", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Time. Just keep at it. Muscular endurance will come.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/45808", "https://fitness.stackexchange.com", "https://fitness.stackexchange.com/users/38114/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 4, "author": "Jez", "author_id": 8, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I think the approach should be that we \"strongly encourage\" references to reliable web sources in answers (as, for example, the Skeptics Q&amp;A does), so you're not just taking someone's word for it when it comes to medical advice/info. Perhaps if a thorough enough answer is given, a reference wouldn't be required, but usually it would.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 67, "author": "JohnP", "author_id": 64, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/64", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>While there is no specific requirement, on the Fitness SE site we deal with it by downvoting \"bro-science\" answers or challenging the person to back up their claims with data.</p>\n\n<p>I think that if you are relating something that is fairly proven common knowledge, you don't necessarily need to cite sources, but if you are posting something that goes against \"common\" knowledge or in an area where there are conflicting answers that backing it up would be required. Otherwise you run into a \"he said/she said\" type of situation, and people upvoting whichever position they happen to agree with.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 103, "author": "JorgeArtware", "author_id": 174, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/174", "pm_score": 5, "selected": false, "text": "<h2>I vote YES. Absolutely.</h2>\n\n<p>That's the whole point IMHO; <strong>otherwise</strong> this site will fall on an equal not-so-sweet spot between usefulness and uselessness <strong>as <em>yahoo answers</em></strong>.</p>\n\n<p>The only way we're going to move away from the abundance of \"<em>voodoo-medicine</em>\" is by demanding factual evidence.\n<strong>If it's not documented, it is not medicine, it is <em>quackery</em></strong>, even if it sounds right because \"common sense\". </p>\n\n<p>I didn't go through the Area 51 process of voting, following, committing, and signing up to this site to be able to access \"fairly proven common knowledge\".<br>\n<strong>I came for the scientific health info exchange</strong>; I came for scientific data &amp; knowledge translated to health advise when possible, if you may. </p>\n\n<p>This site offers an opportunity to reduce the amount of disinformation and misinformation that prevail out there in every culture because of voodoo medicine and quackery. Patients are sick of it, doctors are sick of it, only charlatans profit. More and BETTER information will lead to healthier people and <strong>more doctors with enough time on their hands to pursue research efforts and push forward on medical discovery and progress</strong>.</p>\n\n<h3>Remember 2 things:</h3>\n\n<ul>\n<li>Stack exchange sites strive to be <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/ask/advice?\">for experts by experts</a>, so the non-experts can read and learn actual facts and truly useful information. </li>\n<li>Stack exchange pages must have enough info to stand on their own and not rely so much on external sources because the web changes and links may break; so you should link references and also cite the relevant textual content if possible (unless copyrights don't allow it). </li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>And let's not forget this topic is not <a href=\"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/\">arcade/gaming</a>, <a href=\"https://movies.stackexchange.com/\">movies</a> &amp; <a href=\"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/\">sci-fi</a> where \"mistakes\" are almost (arguably) meaningless in the real world. This topic/site importance is comparable to (or more important than) <a href=\"https://stackoverflow.com/\">programming</a>, <a href=\"https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/\">programmers</a> and such, where not having access to the right information can cost jobs, money or even lives. </p>\n\n<p>So, everything must be taken with a grain of salt? Yes, always, but <strong>that is no excuse</strong> for mediocre questions/answers. </p>\n\n<p>I would very much like it if this site <a href=\"http://stackexchange.com/sites\">grew as much as stackoverflow</a> or at least as big as serverfault, superuser &amp; askubuntu. I'm not a doctor so I've been inviting all the reputable and respectable doctors I know. For starters my brother who is young but amazingly talented on both his intellect and his way of explaining complicated processes in a simple to understand manner. </p>\n\n<p>I've seen Computer Sciences grow so very damn fast in a great deal thanks to the open and ever-generous community. I owe you guys a lot; you help me and I help you. We share and share knowledge that's easy to debug and test. </p>\n\n<h3>Our health deserves the same love.</h3>\n\n<p>Our health depends on the correct function of a system made of subsystems that were not designed by us.\nSo, regardless if you believe it was intelligent design or evolution, the fact is that all of our solid knowledge of this system has come from <strong>reverse engineering human biology</strong> or another kind of biology as a mean to understand our own.</p>\n\n<p>I will be down-voting any answer that does not provide ANY kind of reference (and it should not be taken personal) that's lazy, plain and simple. It doesn't even have to be a totally irrefutable source; it can range from believable to reputable to trust-worthy to actual evidence. <strong>The point being that experts should exchange ideas &amp; information with a problem solving mindset</strong>; vetted by experts, half baked answers with bad ideas and dubious references would sink to the bottom and the best ideas would rise to the top and we should know where those ideas came from.</p>\n\n<p>So yeah, you should most definitely add reference links and cite sources, otherwise we have to take only your word for it. Taking your word is OK if we're in a hospital or a clinic because we can expect the person talking on a white coat to be a qualified professional, but on a web forum not so much, and <strong>if not providing references becomes accepted as part of this SE site's culture, then the site becomes pointless and useless</strong> to me and for you. We could very well be reading a consumer magazine (reader's digest) or a fashion magazine article and call it a day; but I don't want that, I want the evidence, I want the science. </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 299, "author": "Franck Dernoncourt", "author_id": 43, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/43", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>In short: the current moderation policy is that answers with no references are acceptable.</p>\n\n<p><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/2zDOz.png\" alt=\"enter image description here\"></p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 368, "author": "Agent_L", "author_id": 929, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/929", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "<h2>NO</h2>\n\n<p>This site is not FDA. It's not its job to protect people against themselves. It's not even possible to do so.</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li><p>Some answers will come from first-hand experience. E.g. the observation that <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimatoprost#Cosmetic_use\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">glaucoma drug (Bimatoprost/Latisse/Lumigan) promotes eyelash growth</a>. Requiring references to back up such claims would put us at same disadvantage as pharmaceutical corporations - having to wait years until trials are completed and reference material created.</p></li>\n<li><p>Some people will come here exactly for \"fairly proven common knowledge\", just like on <a href=\"https://lifehacks.stackexchange.com/questions/6229/how-to-sleep-with-a-stuffy-blocked-nose\">lifehacks</a> .</p></li>\n<li><p>My most important argument is that there is plenty of bogus reference. Infamous \"vaccines cause autism\" claim did have reference of nothing less but <strong>The Lancet</strong> itself. This alone, in my opinion, should shatter any faith that references alone can make this site reliable.</p>\n\n<p>By requiring links to references, we're encouraging users to trust potentially malicious references provided by potentially malicious author. I believe we should rater encourage askers to research answers on their own instead of trusting them blindingly.</p></li>\n<li><p>Skeptics is the worst role model possible. Skeptics is not a site for \"pretty much any topic\" that couldn't fit any other Stack. The very reason of Skeptics is to bring up some \"fairly proven common knowledge\" in order to confirm or disprove it. This makes references <strong>the whole point of skeptics</strong>, which is absolutely not the case here. We should stop comparing Health to Skeptics, because their goals couldn't be more different.</p></li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>There is certainly risk of bad answers. I propose <strong>deleting answers proven wrong</strong> rather than <strong>deleting answers unproven right</strong>. Perhaps not even deleting, but leaving disproved answer with correcting notice can be as helpful as good answer.</p>\n\n<p>I strongly believe that all humans instinctively take health topics far more serious than any others. But this is the instinct, and like many others, it no longer serves us right. Outdoors, Travel, Home Improvement, Motor Vehicles, Engineering - all these also carry (potentially life-threatening) severe consequences (and are not experts-to-experts). We should take this irrational fear into account and force ourselves to stop treating Health with undue reverence. After all, every drug OTC or not, carries it's own pamphlet of warnings. Users already have access to those, what we need is to remind to read them, not make an impression that \"you're safe, we've read them for you\".</p>\n\n<p>There is no need of holding Health to higher standards than other Stack QAs.\nThere is no need of trying to act as professionally as doctors. </p>\n\n<p>//edit: This site is already too focused on the references while ignoring actual knowledge. See comments under my answer: <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/1377/is-low-blue-light-helpful-for-preserving-eyesight/1431?noredirect=1#comment2797_1431\">Is Low Blue Light helpful for preserving eyesight?</a>\nOne guy mentions \"They cite a lot of studies\" on some website and moderator immediately goes \"That would make a great answer\". There is no attention paid to actually answering the question neither to the quality of it. Only immediate jump to rushed conlusion: \"<strong>many references = great answer</strong>\".\nWe need to stop this mindset!</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 383, "author": "Count Iblis", "author_id": 856, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/856", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>A big problem here is that from only the peer reviewed scientific literature you'll have a difficult time extracting what a healthy lifestyle is. Most of what we know is healthy was known for thousands of years, and only some of this has been rigorously proven. </p>\n\n<p>Fundamentally the problem is that there is big gap between being physically fit and ill. Health and fitness is not merely \"not being ill\", but the medical literature is mostly focused on illness. It is just like your new car that can drive 200 km/h and accelerate from 0 to 100 km/h in 3 seconds that is not merely \"not a wreck\". The knowledge on how to repair damaged cars won't help a race car driver all that much to fine tune his car to win the next race.</p>\n\n<p>So, I take it the downvoters would disagree with the mother in the following conversation?</p>\n\n<p>Mother to son: \"Eat the vegetables, broccoli is healthy.\"</p>\n\n<p>Son to mother: \"I don't like it, it doesn't taste good.\"</p>\n\n<p>Mother to son: \"Just eat it, it's good for your health.\"</p>\n\n<p>Son to mother: \"Prove it.\"</p>\n\n<p>Mother to son: \"What?\"</p>\n\n<p>Son to mother: \"That's what the teacher explained in class today. He said that when it comes to statement of facts, you can't just say something, you have to prove it. That's how science works.\"</p>\n\n<p>Mother to son: \"Look, just eat your broccoli and shut up, or else you won't get dessert.\" </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 499, "author": "Aganju", "author_id": 2392, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/2392", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I think the answer should be <strong>No</strong>, because it otherwise <em>reduces the value of this site to nearly zero</em> - it becomes a mere link collection.</p>\n\n<p>If only answers with valid references are allowed, there is no gain for anyone in using health.stackexchange; people can just google (or bing) the question and find the references themselves. If there are no references to be found, then no answer would be allowed here either, so the question would just sit unanswered forever.</p>\n\n<p>I seriously wonder why so many of you think <em>'Yes'</em> would be a good answer - what sense does the whole site then make?</p>\n\n<p>I think a lot can be gained for the asker by qualified answers without a reference, even though that leaves of course some risk that the answer is incorrect (but a reference leaves that risk too)</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 1050, "author": "userJT", "author_id": 15631, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/15631", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>There are many questions that don't have any evidence and any past literature. So: No.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/-1/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 11, "author": "Robert Cartaino", "author_id": 29, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/29", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>It's difficult to apply a \"rule\" so broadly as stated. In general, we don't like to edit a user's question to change the context of what they are actually asking. Nor do we embrace this concept of \"too localized\", that someone's very specific question should be watered down to apply to all. </p>\n\n<p>Sometimes you can take an interesting subject and make its contents <strong>sooo generic</strong>, that you take all the intriguing, <em>applied</em> questions on the subject, and turn it into <strong>a bland retreatment of articles you might find on Wikipedia.</strong> No thank you.</p>\n\n<p>Before we identify an <em>actual</em> wide-spread problem on the site, I would suggest <em>not</em> taking that leap of saying all questions should be transformed into their generic form. I think you will find it will make the site <em>less</em> interesting and useful. But let's see how that pans out in actual practice.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 942, "author": "Bryan Krause", "author_id": 8728, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8728", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>We all know that we get a lot of questions for personal medical advice here, but I feel like some of these could be easily edited into something answerable, because the personal part of it is completely inconsequential to the actual question, for example this question has now been edited:</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/17016/are-babies-turned-upside-down-after-birth\">Are babies turned upside down after birth?</a></p>\n\n<p>I feel like instead of close-voting, people could have simply done a similar edit by themselves. Even more importantly, this individual was clearly not asking for any sort of immediate advice, they were asking generally about medical practice; the personal part of it was merely them explaining their motivation with some vague mention of the future. The OP is clearly not intending to ever deliver a baby, they A) Saw something on TV and B) thought critically about whether this was a legitimate procedure or just made-for-TV.</p>\n\n<p>I think most of us can agree that this type of question is so much different from these other recent questions that most definitely deserve close votes:</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/17033/sharp-pain-on-anus-interior-sphincter\">Sharp pain on anus (interior sphincter)</a></p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/17028/is-there-any-evidence-that-propranolol-inderal-can-behave-like-a-steroid\">https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/17028/is-there-any-evidence-that-propranolol-inderal-can-behave-like-a-steroid</a></p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/17004/mri-brain-for-my-girl-14-y\">MRI brain for my girl 14 y</a></p>\n\n<p>I think questions like these are clearly too personal and cannot be edited, and close voting is correct.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 12, "author": "michaelpri", "author_id": 26, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I really like this idea. Most of the people on this site will probably not be very qualified to give out medical advice, even if they do give very good advice and information. I personally am not qualified to have any medical job, but I come from a family of nurses, so I have always been interested. But I certainly don't people taking my advice over a certified physician's. Reddit's medical disclaimer is very good, so I think we should have something very similar.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 14, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>A disclaimer doesn't solve the actual issue. Any reasonable person should know that they shouldn't trust the internet for medical advice. And anyone else won't read the disclaimer anyway.</p>\n\n<p>If the question of a user indicates in some way that it might be a serious condition, any answer should recommend visiting a doctor anyway. This might only be marginally more effective than a general disclaimer, but I still have a slight hope that a personalized disclaimer has a slightly better chance of working than just having a generic banner somewhere.</p>\n\n<p>These disclaimers are usually added for legal reasons, not because they are useful. If the SE laywers consider such a disclaimer necessary, they'll add it. Otherwise I don't really see the need for it.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 26, "author": "Scimonster", "author_id": 100, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/100", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>This would not only be useful to Health.SE -- it would be useful for other sites as well. That said, it was actually requested on MSE 3.5 years ago: <a href=\"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/104821/wanted-a-standard-way-for-a-site-to-have-a-prominent-professional-advice-discla\">Wanted: A standard way for a site to have a prominent professional advice disclaimer</a></p>\n\n<p>There has been no update on it since then.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 82, "author": "Pobrecita", "author_id": 167, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/167", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Maybe a link to Terms and Services or the Help Center will work . 1+ Because I do think it is necessary, we should just make it not to obvious, Maybe a reference to a link and a brief statement. Like: \"This content does not replace medical attention. For all emergencies, second opinions, Diagnosis, etc seek the appropriate medical resources.\"</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>I predict that one of the major criticisms of the site will be that bad medical information was provided, which could even open up the site to litigation. </p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<ul>\n<li>Good prediction. But the advice will always be\"bad\", because odds are they are not coming from a medical doctor. The only thing that we can do is try to raise quality and promote adding research to post. Also, having rules that guard against low quality post.</li>\n</ul>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Might it be a good idea to have something very clear along the top of the site, along the lines of Reddit's disclaimer, to indicate that this advice is no replacement for that of a qualified physician?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Yep. My opinion on that is above.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 406, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<h1>No.</h1>\n<p>I am very disappointed and appalled that Health.SE and Law.SE have recently put up these disclaimers:</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/EbQVg.jpg\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/EbQVg.jpg\" alt=\"enter image description here\" /></a></p>\n<p>These disclaimers continue to perpetuate the myth that there is something special about health and law; that when it comes to these two specific spheres of human life, there is somehow a priesthood of experts who have a monopoly over the truth; that those who have not spent many hundreds of thousands of dollars and years on medical or law school are not allowed to speak.</p>\n<p>I think one of the goals of Health.SE or Law.SE (or any other SE site) was to prove that you could get useful information and advice on the internet for free, instead of forking out wads of money to a &quot;qualified professional&quot;. These disclaimers tend to perpetuate the myth that when it comes to health or law, mere internet sites cannot possibly be <em>that</em> useful after all; if you want useful advice, you must still pay big-time money for &quot;qualified advice&quot; from a &quot;professional&quot;.</p>\n<p>In most other countries, the freedom to express your views and give advice about health or law is no less than the freedom to do likewise for say travel or sports. It is primarily in the USA that people have been conditioned by excessive litigation to be very fearful of expressing their views about health or law.</p>\n<p>Why, may I ask, is there not a similar disclaimer on Travel.SE that looks like this:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><strong>Travel Stack Exchange is for educational purposes only and is not a substitute for individualized advice from a qualified travel agent.</strong></p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>After all, traveling can be every bit as hazardous as any health or legal issue. Go to the wrong place and you might be raped and murdered. Go to the wrong country and you may be kidnapped or wrongfully imprisoned. Such a disclaimer on Travel.SE may seem to the American more absurd than a disclaimer on Health.SE or Law.SE---but only because, I believe, Americans have been conditioned by excessive litigation to be fearful of giving medical or legal advice.</p>\n<p>But to most people from the rest of the world, such a disclaimer on Travel.SE is no more absurd than similar disclaimers on Health.SE or Law.SE.</p>\n<p>I must therefore strongly insist on either of the following options:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><h1>Have NO disclaimers on any Stack Exchange sites whatsoever OR put up such disclaimers across ALL Stack Exchange sites.</h1>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<p>We should absolutely insist that there is nothing special about Health or Law, as compared to say Travel or any other human endeavor. When someone on the internet dispenses advice about health or law, I know to take it with a pinch of salt, just as when he dispenses travel advice.</p>\n<ul>\n<li><h1>Alternatively, if the American fear of litigation is the key motivation for such disclaimers, then display these Health and Law disclaimers only to users with US IP addresses.</h1>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<p>People from the rest of the world should not be subject to the same fear and intimidation that Americans are accustomed to, when it comes to health and law.</p>\n<p>P.S. If there are other countries in the world where health and law similarly occupy a privileged position, I apologize. But AFAIK, this is a uniquely American phenomenon.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 7, "author": "Robert Cartaino", "author_id": 29, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/29", "pm_score": 6, "selected": true, "text": "<p>No, we don't sanction one user over another based on their credentials. That is simply <em>not</em> how the Stack Exchange model works.</p>\n\n<p>We &mdash; as a community &mdash; vet <em>answers.</em> This type of certification of <em>users</em> had been requested as recently as our Engineering site (<a href=\"https://engineering.meta.stackexchange.com/q/257/13\">Are expertise verified user flairs possible?</a>), but we simply do not pre-qualify one user's participation over another based on who they are. </p>\n\n<p>A user's answers &mdash; or anything written on the internet for that matter &mdash; should <em>never</em> be taken verbatim. You should remain skeptical and vet the information you see. Ask questions and clarify posts wherever you are able. It is that strong culture of peer review and wiki-style editing that makes this all work. And that is the strength of Stack Exchange. </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 304, "author": "cirko", "author_id": 514, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/514", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Unlike Computer Science, which is IMO undisputably the topic where Stack Exchange shines and has taken a leadership role, Healthcare has a completely different policy in decision-making. Decisions in medicine are FIRST based on previous experiences, and only SECOND on evidence. This may not be comprehensible to many at first glance, but evidence-based medicine <a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine\" rel=\"nofollow\">is a relatively recent movement</a>. Only little by little is medical science finding out <em>why</em> a treatment works the way it does, e. g. <a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamizole\" rel=\"nofollow\">why Metamizole eases your headache</a>. It is imperative to expand and improve this knowledge, of course. So what does lead to decisions in medicine, then? To share the knowledge based on experience, medicine still relies on a hierarchical system of teaching and books, which are basically also founded on previous hierarchies of experience, and only later at some point turned into evidence (or sometimes, of course, also refuted).</p>\n\n<p>Which brings up the point: If Stack Exchange will only rely on evidence-based medicine, a large aspect of medicine will be deliberately left out just for shortening the discussion, leaving us with the least common denominator of information available. I understand that the goal is to keep the amount of misinformation and low-quality information as low as possible. Still, in my opinion, in such an experience-based field like medicine, admitting the registration of MDs would increase the significance of the answers, and the opposite would instead decrease Stack Exchange's significance so much that me personally, as a healthcare professional, I would have to discourage patients seeking for informations from using it.</p>\n\n<p>Don't get me wrong: I couldn't be lobbying more for evidence-based medicine; but to find the best answers in healthcare, it simply isn't enough.</p>\n\n<p>If an MD registration is not possible or wanted, at least the admittance of books instead of internet links as citations would be appropriate for increasing the significance of SE answers.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 317, "author": "Atl LED", "author_id": 601, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/601", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Few thoughts, even though I know this is a decided issue. I wouldn't post here if my credentials were added to my account. It seems like a legal nightmare for both US and Canadian residents (can't speak for the rest of the world) on regulations for medical advice. That fear is why I'm curious to see how this pans out, and more likely to participate in Bio.SE.</p>\n\n<p>That said, I don't even think it's a good idea from an advice stand point. Hands down I would rather have a broken radius set by an ortho PA who did it all day than say an internist. A more extreme example is that I would prefer a paramedic who is used to doing several intubations than a dermatologist who did it a few times XX years ago.</p>\n\n<p>This isn't to hate on the dermatologist or the internist, but rather, the best information might come from someone who does not have a MD.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 8, "author": "Uwe Keim", "author_id": 33, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/33", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Personally, I find mental health things like psychopathy or narcissism very interesting topics.</p>\n\n<p>So I would vote to include these type of questions.</p>\n\n<p>On the other hand, there is already <a href=\"https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/\">Cognitive Sciences</a>.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 9, "author": "Robert Cartaino", "author_id": 29, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/29", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>No, this site was was created on the premise of serving <a href=\"http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/66048?phase=definition\">medical health</a>. There is nothing in the proposal suggesting this extend into physiological or mental health issues, and we did not solicit support from that community. That is simply a different scope of expertise &hellip; well, not exactly \"simply\" &mdash; it's a complicated issue &mdash; but this site should focus primarily on issues of <em>physical</em> health.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 61, "author": "Attilio", "author_id": 120, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/120", "pm_score": 5, "selected": true, "text": "<p>Based on the comments to the other answer I propose: mental health questions are <strong>on-topic</strong> for the following reasons:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>mental health is part of global health</li>\n<li>in some cases, it's difficult to draw a line between the two areas</li>\n<li>there are several interactions between psychological processes and physical-organic phenomena</li>\n</ul>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 13, "author": "michaelpri", "author_id": 26, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Nice catch, didn't even notice. Obviously we will have to change our logo because we are the newer site. I have a few ideas for a new logo. We could just do \"HE\", but that is a little boring. I was also thinking we could possibly do a red cross, but that would conflict with Christianity a little. I think that a heart might be good. I don't think this would conflict with any other sites and it would probably look good too. </p>\n\n<p><strong>What I now recommend, is to do a <a href=\"http://www.iconexperience.com/_img/i_collection_png/512x512/plain/heartbeat.png\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">heartbeat</a> icon. Some people might confuse the heart for romance, but the heartbeat icon is obviously related to health. (Idea from Zach Saucier in the comments)</strong></p>\n\n<p>I've decided to try to design the heartbeat logo, so here it is. Let me know what you guys think.</p>\n\n<p><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/AHztT.png\" alt=\"Bigger Heartbeat Icon\"> </p>\n\n<p>More accurate heartbeat made by @Tim, red and white versions (the small size gets cutoff)</p>\n\n<p><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/9D927m.png\" alt=\"More accurate heartbeat\"></p>\n\n<p><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/cHd39m.png\" alt=\"\"></p>\n\n<p>If you would like to improve it, here is an SVG link: <a href=\"https://openclipart.org/download/216852/heartbeato.svg\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">https://openclipart.org/download/216852/heartbeato.svg</a> </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 32, "author": "StrongBad", "author_id": 55, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/55", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I propose that the icon should use the <a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_of_Asclepius\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Rod of Asclepius</a> which is the serpent-entwined rod in the middle of the Star of Life:</p>\n\n<p><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/zrG5Y.png\" alt=\"enter image description here\"></p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 36, "author": "Nate Barbettini", "author_id": 59, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/59", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Another option that scales down well is <strong>Rx</strong>, although this may be too narrowly associated with drugs.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 37, "author": "M'vy", "author_id": 108, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/108", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I would suggest a icon version of a nice ECG of a heart in normal sinus rhythm.</p>\n\n<p><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/f03QS.png\" alt=\"enter image description here\"></p>\n\n<p>Good sinus rhythm being usually seen a good health symptom.</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/SinusRhythmLabels.svg/1024px-SinusRhythmLabels.svg.png\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Source of image</a> \"SinusRhythmLabels\" by Created by Anthony Atkielski. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 59, "author": "Shimmy Weitzhandler", "author_id": 115, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/115", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>How about one of the hospital sign.</p>\n\n<p><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/NnJ7Bs.png\" alt=\"enter image description here\"><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/HFL8es.png\" alt=\"enter image description here\"></p>\n\n<p>The H sign could work if it's not as light-blue as the history, and that it's lacking the talk balloon, and having it look more like a hospital sign. Plus it's obviously referring to Health as well.<br>\nAnyway personally I like the plus sign more.<br>\nMaybe just make a SE icon template (with balloon that wraps the plus), to make it SE-specific.\nI think the dark-blue color emphasizes it's something else.</p>\n\n<p>And I'm sharing you here with <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10/icon-is-identical-to-history/59#comment268_59\">Tim's suggestion</a> as well (ignore the black background):</p>\n\n<p><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/wxW85t.png\" alt=\"enter image description here\"></p>\n\n<p>Again the idea could be nice but the plus sign will barely be recognizable as a favicon. Perhaps changing increasing the plus sign could work.<br>\nIMHO the final icon should have one main idea leveraged by all the the awesome ideas suggested in this thread.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/-1/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 17, "author": "StrongBad", "author_id": 55, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/55", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I think some of this should be added to <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-answer\">https://health.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-answer</a> and <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic\">https://health.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic</a>.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 27, "author": "Scimonster", "author_id": 100, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/100", "pm_score": 5, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Regarding personal advice, some other sites have close reasons for this.<br>\nJudaism.SE has a close reason for \"<a href=\"https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1733/5151\">ask your rabbi</a>\". Christianity.SE has a close reason for \"<a href=\"https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1860\">ask your pastor</a>\".</p>\n\n<p>I think that when Health moves out of private beta we could also have a close reason for \"ask your doctor\".</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 78, "author": "Susan", "author_id": 165, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/165", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<blockquote>\n <p>Nobody is suing Stack Exchange for hosting illicit talks about how to treat your athletes' foot or discussing if vitamin C really does help stave off a cold.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>I appreciate this point, and I recognize that it reflects the consistent, sensible approach that SE has taken to such issues. I think there is one aspect of this that often flies under the radar, though. Although there may be no <em>real</em> threat of a lawsuit anywhere in the vicinity, the <em>perception</em> of such a threat is an issue for <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/site-promotion\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;site-promotion&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">site-promotion</a>. </p>\n\n<p>The <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/site-promotion\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;site-promotion&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">site-promotion</a> tag apparently has zero meta discussion as of yet, but it should, and will. <a href=\"http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/07/area-51-asking-the-first-questions/\">Along these lines</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>But, in these earliest days, we are DESIGNING a site for experts. To attract experts, you need a site where people are asking very interesting and challenging questions, not the basic questions found on every other Q&amp;A site. Remember, the pro sites WILL attract the enthusiasts, but not the other way around!</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>What does this have to do with lawsuits? One group of people with the appropriate background to serve as “experts” for many of questions on this site will be those with medical training. <strong>Doctors</strong> (in the US) <strong>are</strong> (frequently) <strong>paranoid</strong>. <a href=\"http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1012370\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Most are sued at some point in their career</a>, nearly everybody knows somebody who has been sued, and <a href=\"http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/malpractice-report/public)\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">the hype around the trauma of lawsuits</a> is incessant. </p>\n\n<p>What percentage of these lawsuits involved circumstances that are anything like the health.SE site? I have no idea; probably fleetingly few, perhaps none. That doesn’t matter. The prevailing impression (among a bunch of people who know almost nothing about law and make it their life’s aim to stay as far away from it as possible) is that an MD who provides medical advice &mdash; however loosely construed &mdash; can be sued if it’s bad advice. </p>\n\n<h2>How is this related to health.SE?</h2>\n\n<p>One question asked: <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3/165\">Should the site have a clear disclaimer along the top?</a></p>\n\n<p>One of the answers:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>A disclaimer doesn't solve the actual issue. Any reasonable person should know that they shouldn't trust the internet for medical advice. And anyone else won't read the disclaimer anyway.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>This strikes me as completely reasonable. However, as in so many areas, I’m not sure that we can assume that reason governs behavior.</p>\n\n<p>So there is no actual issue. So a disclaimer doesn’t actually negate said nonexistent issue. <strong>What’s the point?</strong> The point is that it may make (at least some) of the experts you’re interested in attracting more comfortable. It may make the difference between a decision to offer an answer and a decision to click away because “it isn’t worth it” due to a perceived possibility of legal liability for practicing something that we all know isn’t proper medicine.</p>\n\n<p>There has been a lot of pooh-poohing concerns about lawsuits. I happen to believe you when you say that y’all have looked into it and this isn’t an issue.* I do think, though, that a willingness to cater to the (baseless, inane, delusional, whatever) apprehensions shared by many MD-types would go a long way to allowing this site to attract the experts that will help it succeed. </p>\n\n<p>I don’t know what that should entail. A disclaimer shown to people asking questions, or an item in the Q&amp;A that explains how the legal responsibilities (or lack thereof) in this area work, or a notation in the tour that nothing here should be construed as personal medical advice? I also agree with an idea raised in another answer about a related close reason. I just don’t want to see us refuse to engage in a discussion of such measures because smart, objective people tell us that it’s silly. When it comes to <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/site-promotion\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;site-promotion&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">site-promotion</a>, <em>that’s not the point</em>.</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>_{\n*Although I note that you say that “nobody is suing Stack Exchange.” The concerns I relay here are not about <em>Stack Exchange’s</em> legal accountability…. \n}</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 101, "author": "anongoodnurse", "author_id": 169, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/169", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I will be a dissenting voice here.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>There IS potential for poor advice to be passed on here, and folks simply up-voting the best-sounding answer is going to get this site shut down fast. We can't have the blind leading the blind in a subject like this.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>I've been here all of two days. However I've been a doctor for decades, and I've already seen bad answers and advice up-voted here. How do you propose to avoid your scenario?</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>It was believed that such knowledge in the hands of the the unwashed masses would be dangerous without the proper tutelage to wield it wisely.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>That represents a reality of the situation. Ask any physician how often patients have insisted on an antibiotic which was completely unnecessary, or believed Tylenol in mega-doses was safe because the government wouldn't allow it to be sold over the counter if it wasn't. (And this while Paracetamol was the suicide drug of choice in the UK.)</p>\n\n<p>One needn't be well above average to practice medicine, but one does need to study hard for a long time; the average (after college) is seven years - 4 of medical school, 3 of residency - and that is the minimum for a competent primary physician. (It takes less time to become versed in only a wide variety of the most common problems; that's what physician's assistants do.) Add to that the fact that you learn more medicine your first year out on your own than you learned in any of the previous 7 years. Year by year, the learning falls in quantity, but always continues. How can the average SE user compete with that? </p>\n\n<p>The voting on <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/120/\">this question</a> puzzles me. There are equal up and down votes for both answers. How are people making their decisions? I can only guess that the first answer, before the edits, was not acceptably written even though it is basically correct. This is exactly the scenario you describe:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>We can't have a \"sounds good\" motif here.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>I don't have any problem with all the free advice in the world given freely by non-members of my secret society <strong>as long as it's correct</strong>. Or bad advice about athlete's foot, splinters, or Vitamin C because it will mostly be innocuous. I have a concern about users that have and will continue to up-vote well-written, authoritative sounding answers that are simply wrong. This can only be discouraged by requiring answers to have decent references. Without them, it's no better than what you might get from your brother-in-law's cousin or the guy sitting next to you on the bus. </p>\n\n<p>I like SE. I'm active on a number of sites. I want Health.SE to succeed, so I have an interest in being here. But how will you get the professionals you want to come here unless it's more professional? </p>\n\n<p>Your decision.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 357, "author": "Ooker", "author_id": 99, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/99", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>The purpose of the whole SE (which Health is a member) is providing <strong>knowledge</strong>. It can be in the form of advises, methods, or cures, but it must tell <strong>why</strong> it works. There is no clear cut what question is not potentially dangerous, but if it clearly requires a doctor, then it should be closed. In a <em>good form</em> answer, it will have a reference to back it up. In an Utopia, where anyone can reach a doctor, I definitely dis-support this site. But there are places in the world where the patients can't have good condition (can't find a doctor, can only talk to them under five minutes, or worst, doctor who are only care for making money), then this site will help both the patients and the doctors.</p>\n\n<p>Check out:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1/99\">Should we require references to back up all answers?</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/q/139/99\">What should we do with questions where the answer is clearly 'see a doctor'?</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/q/56/99\">Are personal medical advice questions on topic here?</a></li>\n</ul>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/15", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/29/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 31, "author": "M'vy", "author_id": 108, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/108", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>It is possible to use the following format :</p>\n\n<p>Lorem ipsum reference [<a href=\"http://www.test.com\" rel=\"nofollow\">1</a>] </p>\n\n<p>by typing:</p>\n\n<pre><code>Reference [[1]]\n\n[1]: http://www.test.com\n</code></pre>\n\n<p>We should help users find the \"how to cite papers\", but I do not think a specific UI button is needed for this.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 44, "author": "Franck Dernoncourt", "author_id": 43, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/43", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>What if the link dies? <a href=\"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/300916/395857\">On Stack Overflow, 10% of the links posted here are dead</a>.</p>\n\n<p>I think it is better have the <code>1</code> points to a full reference at the bottom of the answer like:</p>\n\n<p>Byers, Tim, et al. \"<a href=\"https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=4499917991065971551&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=0,22\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">American Cancer Society guidelines on nutrition and physical activity for cancer prevention: reducing the risk of cancer with healthy food choices and physical activity.</a>\" CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 52.2 (2002): 92-119</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 110, "author": "Zaralynda", "author_id": 62, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/62", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I have mixed feelings about this proposal. Sometimes talking about the reference can provide context for why it's trustworthy, such as in <a href=\"https://pets.stackexchange.com/a/6546/224\">this answer</a> I wrote on Pets.SE.</p>\n\n<p>This context isn't really necessary in a conversation among medical professionals (who all know what a trustworthy source in their field is), but for a mixed site like this, context can help differentiate an answer written from scientific sources from one that just repeats old medical folklore.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 314, "author": "michaelpri", "author_id": 26, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I think that any way of doing links is fine as long as you have them in there, but I thought it'd be okay to show how I do it, in case anyone is struggling with another format. </p>\n\n<p>What I do is put <code>&lt;sup&gt;[1]&lt;/sup&gt;</code> in my answer where it is relevant, so it will show up like this^{<a href=\"http://example.com/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">1</a>}. Then under my answer, I will use footnotes and tell the number of the reference and the name of its page, like this <code>&lt;sup&gt;[1: Example][1]&lt;/sup&gt;</code>. Which will show up like this: ^{<a href=\"http://example.com/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">1: Example</a>}. If I am citing a reference that I didn't directly cite in my answer, I will just use the second half of my referencing style: <code>&lt;sup&gt;[Example][1]&lt;/sup&gt;</code>, which will show up like this: ^{<a href=\"http://example.com/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Example</a>}.</p>\n\n<p>I have now created a <a href=\"https://stackapps.com/questions/6376/stack-exchange-references\">userscript to do this</a>. Check it out.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 888, "author": "Chris Rogers", "author_id": 7951, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/7951", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "<p>This question was <a href=\"https://psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8/how-should-references-to-journal-articles-be-provided\">posed in Psychology.SE Meta</a> and I followed the accepted answer with <a href=\"https://psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2331/referencing-formats-apa-harvard-mla-etc\">another question about referencing formats (APA as opposed to others)</a>.</p>\n\n<p>Referencing styles (using superscript numbers or other inline citations) are down to personal preference in my view. The main point to me is that the reference list needs to be clear.</p>\n\n<p>I think that as long as the reference contains the Author (or movie director) and the year of publication at the front, any referencing format is suitable <strong>as long as it contains all the information needed to find the article, book etc.</strong> This way, the reference will be easier to pick out, especially when there are multiple references containing the same leading author.</p>\n\n<p>With the fact that formats such as MLA, Chicago, Vancouver and <a href=\"http://pitt.libguides.com/citationhelp/ieee\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">IEEE</a> are very different, MLA, Chicago and Vancouver formats can be very hard to pick out when looking for specific references in comparison to Harvard and APA.</p>\n\n<p>If following a similar format to IEEE, for example</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>[1] J. U. Duncombe, \"Infrared navigation - Part I: An assessment of feasability,\" IEEE Trans. Electron. Devices, vol. ED-11, pp. 34-39, Jan. 1959.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>even though the [1] will be within the main body of the posting with or without a <code>&lt;sup&gt;</code>), the author and year of publication should still be at the front changing the IEEE reference above to</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>[1] J. U. Duncombe (1959) \"Infrared navigation - Part I: An assessment of feasability,\" IEEE Trans. Electron. Devices, vol. ED-11, pp. 34-39</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>This way, because author and year is together, the reference will be more easily picked out in the list.</p>\n\n<p><strong>Be careful with this formatting though</strong></p>\n\n<p>As you will see if you was to click <strong>edit</strong> at the bottom of this answer, you will have to \"escape\" the square bracket at the beginning if you have links within the posting which are not <a href=\"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/37758/inline-links-in-comments\">inline links</a> <strong>i.e. you would need to type <code>\\[1]</code> instead of <code>[1]</code></strong></p>\n\n<p>I would suggest that if using this format, you should <strong>always</strong> escape the first square bracket to prevent issues.</p>\n\n<h2>********Providing Links********</h2>\n\n<p>As pointed out by <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/43\">@FranckDernoncourt</a> within the answers here, there is an inherent problem with answers on the site having links which go dead because either the page was moved or it was deleted by the website owner.</p>\n\n<p>Where a link is provided, where possible, rather than a direct link to the article, it is preferable to provide one or more of the following:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>PMCID link (<a href=\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/</a> followed by the PMCID),</li>\n<li>PMID link (<a href=\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/</a> followed by the PMID number), or</li>\n<li>DOI link (<a href=\"https://doi.org/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">https://doi.org/</a> followed by the DOI number)</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://psychology.stackexchange.com/a/19009\">for example</a></p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Lewis M. J. &amp; Phillips J. E. (2012). Older people's cardiac responses as indicators of stress in familiar and unfamiliar environments. <em>Psychophysiology</em>, 49(4): pp. 478-483<br>\n DOI: <a href=\"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01321.x\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01321.x</a> PMID: <a href=\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22176515\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">22176515</a></p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>with the link for DOI number <strong>10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01321.x</strong> becoming <code>https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01321.x</code></p>\n\n<p>PMCIDs, PMIDs and DOIs are generally updated if the website owner moves the document within their website.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 891, "author": "Ooker", "author_id": 99, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/99", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "<p>@Michaelpri has made a userscript specific for this:</p>\n<h1><a href=\"https://stackapps.com/q/6376/29559\">Stack Exchange References</a></h1>\n<p><a href=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/axLtg.png\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/axLtg.png\" alt=\"enter image description here\" /></a></p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/16", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/11/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 19, "author": "Joe W", "author_id": 38, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/38", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I would think they would be on topic as they can easily relate to current medical issues. There might be some controversy over some topics as some are considered myth by some people and considered fact by others. An example of this is the debate over vaccination and you will find people on both sides of that posting on this site.</p>\n\n<p>The main problem will be keeping them from becoming primarily opinion based rather then fact based. </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 30, "author": "M'vy", "author_id": 108, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/108", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>The site claims to be for \"health-related questions\". History is not really health related to me. It might be a sub-topic of a discussion, if someone wants indication about difference between current and old medications for example, but purely historical question seems off-topic to me.</p>\n\n<p>Furthermore:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>When was {disease} first identified?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Is encyclopaedia question, so definitely not worth here.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>What led to the myth that {medical myth} is true?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Is probably primarily opinion based. </p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/18", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 21, "author": "michaelpri", "author_id": 26, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "<h1>The Drugstore</h1>\n<p>Vote for this if you wish to keep the current chatroom name</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 23, "author": "Nate Barbettini", "author_id": 59, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/59", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<h1>The Immune System</h1>\n\n<p>Not sure if that's too cheesy/obvious.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 25, "author": "kathy", "author_id": 94, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/94", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<h1>Intensive Care Unit</h1>\n\n<hr>\n" }, { "answer_id": 28, "author": "Jez", "author_id": 8, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<h2>The Surgery</h2>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>In the UK (at least), doctors' normal places of workare called surgeries. And in other places, well, they're places where medical procedures are done.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 29, "author": "M'vy", "author_id": 108, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/108", "pm_score": 5, "selected": true, "text": "<h1>The waiting room</h1>\n\n<p>Everyone has been in one of these. They are a place to talk sometimes.</p>\n\n<p>Cons: it's generally not a happy place for everyone. The term \"waiting\" feels negative.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 33, "author": "kenorb", "author_id": 114, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/114", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<h2>Not A&amp;E</h2>\n\n<p>Just to let people know at start what the chat isn't about.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 34, "author": "kenorb", "author_id": 114, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/114", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<h2>Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious</h2>\n\n<p>It was first added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 1986, later popularized by Disney musical film. It basically means: extraordinarily good and wonderful.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 35, "author": "M'vy", "author_id": 108, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/108", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<h1>The Pharmacy</h1>\n\n<p>A replacement for drug store. The term seems more international and less pejorative as \"drugs\" are in many countries deemed harmful. </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 62, "author": "Ankit Sharma", "author_id": 105, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/105", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<p><strong>The Healing Room</strong></p>\n\n<p><em>Note: its never to late</em></p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 63, "author": "Ankit Sharma", "author_id": 105, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/105", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<p><strong>The kilter<a href=\"https://www.google.co.in/search?q=kilter&amp;oq=kilter&amp;aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l2&amp;client=ubuntu-browser&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;es_sm=93&amp;ie=UTF-8\" rel=\"nofollow\">*</a> Room</strong></p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 65, "author": "Toon Krijthe", "author_id": 136, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/136", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<h1>Eliza</h1>\n<p>Ok, this is a physical health site. But the name deserves a chance.</p>\n<p><a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">who is eliza?</a></p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 66, "author": "Zach Saucier", "author_id": 16, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/16", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<h1>The Healing Pool</h1>\n<p>A laid back place where people congregate, centered around the betterment of their health.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 128, "author": "Mary ML", "author_id": 190, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/190", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<p><strong>The Best Medicine</strong><br>\nAs in \"Laughter is the best medicine\".<br>\nOnly appropriate if we're being funny, though. </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 149, "author": "JorgeArtware", "author_id": 174, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/174", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "<h1>Ambulance Radio</h1>\n\n<p>Radio, live transmission ♪</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 173, "author": "Caleb", "author_id": 214, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/214", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "<h1>The Triage Station</h1>\n\n<p>It might not have the same chatty feel as <strong>The Waiting Room</strong>, but the link to the field of medicine is more apparent and, and I think the name fits given that much of what happens in site specific chat rooms is discussion about how serious various issues are and how to handle individual cases (i.e. Does this answer make any sense? Should this issue be brought up on meta? Does anybody know of better references for this topic? Etc.).</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/20", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 46, "author": "michaelpri", "author_id": 26, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "<p>These should be off-topic. They don't have much to do with health. Also these could be opinionated and too broad because the USA is a big place, so there is no right answer.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 54, "author": "Joe W", "author_id": 38, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/38", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Shopping topics would be off topic since the laws of what can be bought in the health care market will vary from place to place and for somethings it can even be against the law if you don't make the purchase in the correct place.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 68, "author": "JohnP", "author_id": 64, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/64", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>The way this is handled on Fitness is that if it is being used in an ongoing fitness program, it can be on topic. It's the difference between:</p>\n\n<p>\"What's a good bench for a home gym?\"</p>\n\n<p>and</p>\n\n<p>\"I have Bench X, and when I do decline presses, I lose stability in my shoulders. Is there a better bench that will support me when I do declines?\"</p>\n\n<p>Still a shopping recommendation, but it addresses a specific facet, and the use of the item. The first invites speculation and lots of \"Well I like X\" type answers.</p>\n\n<p>So, if the poster can address how they are using it to maintain/enhance health and what they are looking for specifically, it can be on topic.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/45", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/43/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 48, "author": "michaelpri", "author_id": 26, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I don't think that legal issues would fall under health, even if they are about medical laws. I think we should focus on questions that are physical medical problems. There is a <a href=\"http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/67858/law\">Law Proposal</a> on Area 51, so if that ever goes into beta these questions would fit better their.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 51, "author": "Joe W", "author_id": 38, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/38", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I would say they are off topic just because there is so many issues dealing with legal advice in a single country and when you have a site that has a worldwide audience it can quickly lead to issues.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/47", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/43/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 53, "author": "Joe W", "author_id": 38, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/38", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I would disagree on a general catch all tag as they make it hard to get the information you need. Is your wrist problem a strain? is it broken? is it carpel tunnel? I think they would be better served by a combination of tags that help describe the problem. Could use wrist and arthritis for example or wrist and strain to accurately describe the problem.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 87, "author": "michaelpri", "author_id": 26, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I don't think catch-all tags are good in most cases. Obviously it depends on how broad the bigger tag is. For example, the <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/milk\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;milk&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">milk</a> tag <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/49/tag-management-milk-and-dairy/55#55\">was removed</a> as the <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/dairy\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;dairy&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">dairy</a> tag (its parent) was not very broad. The general rule for tags is that they should be able to be used alone. I think for many medical conditions, this will be the case, even though you probably will add extra tags to go along. For example, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/carpal-tunnel-syndrome\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;carpal-tunnel-syndrome&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">carpal-tunnel-syndrome</a> could probably be used alone, but you would still add in other \"helper\" tags. Same thing with an <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/arthritis\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;arthritis&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">arthritis</a> tag. We can see examples of this in many successful SE communities, like SO. StackOverflow has a <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/python\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;python&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">python</a>, but it also has more specialized tags like <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/python-2.7\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;python-2.7&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">python-2.7</a> and <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/python-3.x\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;python-3.x&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">python-3.x</a>. </p>\n\n<p>As long as the parent tag is broad enough and the specialized tag could stand alone, then it is fine to create them. In fact, the specialized tags could help with SEO (search engine optimization).</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/50", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/80/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 57, "author": "Joe W", "author_id": 38, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/38", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Why? If one person has a question others are likely to have a similar or the same question and it can be of help to them also.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 58, "author": "Shimmy Weitzhandler", "author_id": 115, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/115", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "<p>SE agenda is \"Questions that can be answered\", so as long as those medical questions are answer-oriented question, I'd say it is the place.</p>\n\n<p>As per the genuinity and validity of the answers - I believe an answer should always cite and references to the sources quoted from, unless it's something based on personal experience, technical advice, etc.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 202, "author": "Shlublu", "author_id": 102, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/102", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I think this overlaps this other meta question: <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/q/139/99\">What should we do with questions where the answer is clearly 'see a doctor'?</a>.</p>\n\n<p>If the question is personal but satisfies both of these conditions that's fine: </p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>it does not require seeing a doctor </li>\n<li>it is useful to others</li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>As soon as the question is medical it is unlikely to satisfy 1) though <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/334/my-nose-presses-in-a-lot\">a few examples exist</a>.</p>\n\n<p>Otherwise the question should be closed (an in my opinion no answer should be given at all but \"see your doctor\").</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 215, "author": "anongoodnurse", "author_id": 169, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/169", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>On some other SE sites (and it seems that I stir up controversy when I state this, which I'm not trying to do), if an answer will help only the one user - the OP - it's considered not a good fit for the site.</p>\n\n<p>I would say the same principle applies here; if it's about one user alone, it's a personal medical problem.</p>\n\n<p>A question such as \"I suddenly got a pain in my right shoulder while stacking heavy boxes. It hurts when I [do this]. I've had it for four hours now. What can it be?\" is definitely OT in my opinion. \nBut a lot of people suffer from migraines, and not all of them know the newest treatment options. I would tend to answer this.</p>\n\n<p>In terms of medical advice being sometimes dangerous, the subject of a disclaimer came up. I'm all for that. In one of my answers, I added (after recommending acetaminophen or ibuprofen) \"unless it's contraindicated\" (i.e. if there is any reason you shouldn't take it) which is a warning of a kind.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 258, "author": "Isaac Moses", "author_id": 321, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/321", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I am not a healthcare professional, though I do talk to medical professionals socially, about their professions, very frequently, for what it's worth.</p>\n\n<p>I am, however, a veteran Stack Exchange small-community founder, moderator, and active community member, having put in a combined total of over five years in those roles at <a href=\"http://mi.yodeya.com\">Mi Yodeya</a> (Judaism.StackExchange).</p>\n\n<p>At Mi Yodeya, we have a <a href=\"https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1734/can-i-consult-mi-yodeya-as-i-would-a-rabbi\">bright-line rule</a> saying that Mi Yodeya does not \"offer personal guidance in response to practical questions about Jewish law or attitudes, as a rabbi would,\" which we back up by <a href=\"https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1733/2\">closing</a> or editing-to-generalize any question that seeks such advice. We have this rule <a href=\"https://judaism.stackexchange.com/tour\">plastered</a> everywhere <a href=\"https://judaism.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic\">on</a> the <a href=\"https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/halacha\">site</a> we could where it's relevant.</p>\n\n<p>More than once, I've seen point-objections along the lines of \"I know we have a rule against giving personal advice, but I think this case ought to be an exception, because this guy clearly needs help.\" Well, it's a good thing no one had to make that judgement call, because this guy who clearly needs help is also more likely than most to be hurt by following wrong or wrong-for-him advice. Like it or not, the first, best-written, or most likable advice he gets on this site may be wrong, and may remain up and wrong long enough to harm the guy before Stack Exchange peer review fixes the problem. And wrong-for-him is always a possibility on a forum designed for public, atomic, Q&amp;A and not personal dialogue.</p>\n\n<p>But the hearts of good people who like to help others are naturally pulled toward helping the guy who really needs help. The way we prevent our hearts from leading us to reach out inappropriately and tell the guy what to do is that we <a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_pact\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">tie ourselves to the mast</a> before we meet the guy. The way to do that is with a clear rule, clearly documented, and universally implemented.</p>\n\n<p>If healthcare is also a field in which personal advice can only be competently offered by someone who's able to investigate the individual case in detail, if healthcare is also a field in which the consequences of following wrong or wrong-for-you advice could be severe^*, and if healthcare professionals also have a tendency to want to help people who need help, then I recommend that you adopt a similar bright-line rule here, and close any question that seeks personal advice.</p>\n\n<p>If your policy is to only close advice-seeking questions that are \"dangerous\" or \"serious,\" as appears to be suggested <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/193/the-road-to-public-beta-time-to-clean-up-qa-on-health-stack-exchange\">here</a>, then every advice-seeking question is potentially going to lead to a meta-discussion about whether it qualifies as \"dangerous\" or \"serious.\" And while you're arguing about that, someone who's here for content - not meta - is going to go ahead and answer the question. Also, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect that there are diagnostic questions that you'd identify as serious situations if the patient was in front of you (due, say, to some symptom that's obvious and obviously relevant to the trained eye, but not to the untrained one), that present as completely innocuous when written up by the patient.</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>^{* Observant Jews believe this to be the case regarding observance of Judaism. That this is the case for health is probably clear to everyone here.}</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 982, "author": "Paul Taylor", "author_id": 14935, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/14935", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I <a href=\"https://medicalsciences.stackexchange.com/questions/17680/does-this-dental-x-ray-indicate-problem-with-jaw\">posted a question about a dental xray</a>, the question has been put on hold.\nIf I had an x-ray or mri scan they would often be analysed by someone who did not know the details of my case, AI is now being used to analyse such x-rays and I suspect these applications rarely consider other details, so why coudnt that be done on StackOverflow ?</p>\n\n<p>This is a very different to a question such as ' I have an ache in my head' that could be caused by so many things it really would not be sensible to answer here.</p>\n\n<p>The point is an objective answer could have been given based on the x-ray, it may have been incomplete or inconclusive but it would have been helpful. Now I have to go back to my Dentist who I have lost trust in and I am totally unable to trust what they say. Now you may say go to another Dentist, that may happen, but there are costs and difficulties with that approach.</p>\n\n<p>It seems to me that people are happy to give advise on most things except health and law, for these the advise is speak to a professional. But professionals in these areas are difficult and expensive to engage with, and there is a wide variety of ability in these fields. There are also a wide variety of opioions I have been told by one doctor to take a particular medicine/do particular exercise, only to be told by another the complete opposite. </p>\n\n<p>Just like any other profession there are good and bad doctors, dentists, and solicitors. I have been told things I'm sure are incorrect in the past but as a mere patient have been unable to do anything about it, with better education via a service like stackOveflow I could better protect the health of myself and family.</p>\n\n<p>StackOverflow could be a great place to democractise healthcare, shutting of medical-sciences to non professionals is not a good thing.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/56", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/-1/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 70, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>My initial impression was this would be a great site to participate in and answer questions. After only a day of using the site, that jubilation has worn off. The reason is because the community seems very hostile and negative at the moment in my opinion. I was thinking the user base would be similar to the bio user base, but I am afraid I was wrong. With that being said, the site tends to be more off putting them welcoming. Again, this is from my limited experience on the site. </p>\n\n<p>Maybe I am being unfair by comparing it to the user base of Bio, but due to the similar nature and some overlap of the health can have with Bio, I came thinking this and may be the reason I think this since I didn't come in with a blank slate. However, this my initial impression for better or worse.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 71, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "<p>It's not as bad as I feared it could be. But it's also not really good. I raised the issue of requiring references very early because I feared that otherwise the site might become a place where anyone can peddle their favorite theory, and if it sounds plausible enough, it'll be upvoted.</p>\n\n<p>What I realized is that the answers with many references aren't actually better than the ones without references. You can find a reference for pretty much anything related to health, the really hard part is evaluating them and putting them into context. </p>\n\n<p>Overall, the community is not as critical as I'd like. My perspective as a Skeptics mod is probably skewed, but I know just how much bad information about health is out there. I expect solid evidence, or at least the admission that we don't really have any solid evidence yet. </p>\n\n<p>I'm not really seeing anything here yet that actually makes the internet a better place. It doesn't make it worse at the moment, but that's not much to say given the amount of terrible health advice you can find on the internet.</p>\n\n<p><strong>Update impressions after nearly two weeks:</strong></p>\n\n<p>My opinion is now more negative than it was at the beginning. Answers just need to look good, the community is not evaluating them critically enough in many cases and just upvoting them based on appearances. </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 72, "author": "Shlublu", "author_id": 102, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/102", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I didn't plan to participate to Health, initially. I did because First Aid was closed on Area51 while first aid was declared a valid subject for Health. So I came here a little bit \"by default\", and I must say I had a good suprise: </p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>I found interesting questions that I wouldn't have thought about and that interested me as much as the answers they received (those that are documented, elaborated, so helpful),</li>\n<li>I asked a few questions, and one of them received a very valuable answer. I am therefore confident for the two others,</li>\n<li>And I could see that first aid, the subject that made me come here, is also active. Not very, but reasonably let's say. Enough to make me confident.</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>The first point is from far the most important. The idea is to have Q/A useful for the whole community, this is where the value of a SE site actually resides.</p>\n\n<p>This good surprise came with a bad suprise though. The community.\nIt's a little bit as if voting down with no explanation was a national sport here. I've seen several questions harshly voted down today while they are actually valid and can receive excellent answers. One of them voted below zero just received a brilliant and documented answer a few minutes ago.\nI don't understand that. A bunch of users afraid of questions? Or vandalism?\nThe same issue happens with answers, in a lesser extent. </p>\n\n<p>I think this behaviour is not prone to encourage people to ask and answer, even if they have actually valuable things to ask and knowledge to answer. It is more prone to lead users to find other sources of information.</p>\n\n<p>All this being said, it is way too early to come to a conclusion. This is only the beginning of the day 2, and a couple of days is roughly nothing.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 73, "author": "Jez", "author_id": 8, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/8", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>The site is pretty much as I'd expected, with some good answers that have references and some more lay person answers, which don't tend to get voted up as much.</p>\n\n<p>I'm interested as to why you are asking this so soon. The site has been up for 2 days. There are betas that have literally been going for years. Why does this site have to be a near-instantaneous success for it to stick around (it sounds like you'd be happy to shut it down)? I remember with French.SE, we took many months to really get things going. And it's still in beta.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 75, "author": "michaelpri", "author_id": 26, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>For the first two days, I feel the site has gone well. I wasn't planning on participating much, but I answered my first question and I liked it more than I thought I would, so I kept at it. I think that this site has potential. We will go through tough times as we decide what is on and off topic. There will be disagreements. But I think that this site could be one of the top sites on the SE network, if the time is put in. We could even possibly reach a level where we are <strong>the</strong> source for medical info. That second one will be tougher, but it is something good to strive for.</p>\n<p>As of now, I think it is a bit too early to make any harsh judgments. Eventually, there will be more and more medical professionals joining this site, but this could take a while. For now, all we need is people who are interested enough to put in the time and do the research.</p>\n<h3>Improving the site</h3>\n<p>I think that references are important and though there can be good answers without references, providing a link or two to a study will show people that the information is legitimate. The only problem I can see happening with encouraging references is that people will only give references. The order of importance should be information, then links to provide evidence of why the answerer is right.</p>\n<p>Another thing we will need to do is promote the site. Obviously we want more traffic, but what I'm talking about is getting more <em>good</em> users to come in. More questions is great, but what will happen if we don't have enough people to answer them. I do think we'll get better users over time, but we should be actively advertising this community. It wouldn't surprise me if this site became a site where a small percentage of the users answer all of the questions and then the rest just ask a few questions. If we are able to convince better users to join us, then we can steer clear of this problem.</p>\n<p>One last thing is that I think we will have to choose moderators as soon as we can. I am active in the Lifehacks beta (I'm actually a mod) and we didn't get our mods chosen until close to day 100. In that time, we didn't have very many authority figures to step in and to clean up content. I think that getting moderators quickly will be essential for Health.SE to be successful.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>Personally, I think it's a bit too early to really be able to evaluate this site. In a few weeks, I think everyone will have a more accurate opinion on this site.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 83, "author": "kenorb", "author_id": 114, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/114", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>It's going great, better than I thought.</p>\n\n<p>However I feel as I'm missed a lot, because the exact date/time beta launch wasn't specified anywhere, I've checked on Monday/Tuesday daytime couldn't log-in (GMT), logged-in on Wednesday morning, bum, >50 questions, and I was like - what's going on, where all these questions came from, migrated from somewhere? Or maybe it's just gap in time zones, that's all, so nothing new.</p>\n\n<p>It's great that so many people have so many questions and I'm finding it interesting, sometimes:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><p>funny (I wish I could answer: <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/136/how-can-a-person-die-from-extensive-masturbation\">How can a person die from extensive masturbation?</a> or at least more rep to read it again what was about exactly, my first thought on it was <a href=\"http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2557490/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">A Million Ways to Die</a>, however I think if this was decided as not appropriate question, somebody should save it at least into <a href=\"https://meta.serverfault.com/a/8038\">Wayback Machine</a> for further interested audience who missed interesting content due to time zones;</p></li>\n<li><p>too specific/localised where only &lt;0.1% general population is affected and it's still perfectly fine (all people should have the right to know about their health), but probably not for initial beta (as these questions needs more time and effort and I think people simple ignoring them, because they want to focus on 50 more interesting questions, not on some health cases/sickness/syndromes X which they never heard it);</p></li>\n<li><p>disconnected (e.g. <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/q/230/114\">hip ache caused by position of wisdom tooth?</a> which is fairly similar to <a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#Pirates_and_global_warming\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">how weather correlates to number of pirates</a>), I'm not against it, but I don't think all possible correlations between X and Y can be covered by studies and be reliable at the same time simple tradition approaches which are usually criticised,</p></li>\n<li><p>interesting, and I think everything is going on the right track.</p></li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>It's still to early to come into any conclusions after 1-2 days, as some people are affected by time zones and lack of time and I hope many people will come over the weekend and will put some effort into it as well.</p>\n\n<p>Suggestions:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>currently we've 1.4 answer ration, so this indicates we've too many questions and too less answers - I think it's better to have less questions with better answers to be more canonical at start, than too many out-of-place questions and with only few answers, (didn't you play <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/stackegg/leaderboard\">stackegg</a>?:)</li>\n<li>there are still <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=unanswered\">25 unanswered questions</a>, please pick up one and answer it or suggest OP what could be still missing,</li>\n<li>if you're asking the question, try to think of others and look on the bigger picture of it - how I can rephrase my question to be a great example for the site and further duplicates by trying to eliminate too specific things from it - it can take a minute and can increase range of affected people (0.01% to 20%) making a big difference, better quality questions attract better answers and more people would vote, so everybody would benefit from it.</li>\n</ul>\n" }, { "answer_id": 85, "author": "Nate Barbettini", "author_id": 59, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/59", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>At risk of echoing what some of the others have said well already, my impression of the site so far is <strong>mostly good, but not great</strong>.</p>\n\n<p>On the positive side, I've seen some good, insightful questions and some really great, well-researched and clear answers. To echo what @michaelpri said, I think that this could eventually be the go-to place for solid answers to medical questions on the internet. I especially see the usefulness of site that cuts through all the noise and answers \"common\" or \"pop culture\" medical questions in a straightforward, evidence-based way.</p>\n\n<p>That brings me to the bad: as is to be somewhat expected, there have already been a number of lower-quality answers that reference things like Ayurvedic healing, yoga, \"natural is always better than synthetic\", or simply are pop-culture \"common sense\" answers. I think the solution here is two-fold:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><p>Attract more hard experts and scientists to the site. Of course, this will take some time. Make this a place where these types of contributions are highly valued.</p></li>\n<li><p>Be fairly strict with rules about requiring references and evidenced-based, high-quality answers, especially right now while we're in the beginning stages.</p></li>\n</ul>\n" }, { "answer_id": 86, "author": "JohnP", "author_id": 64, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/64", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Overall I think the site is trending well. The bro-science answers are being either downvoted or at least not upvoted, and the better answers are filtering to the top.</p>\n\n<p>As far as the overall content, part of the problem is that the general person really doesn't know that much about health, so they rely on what Aunt Sally told them about colicky babies, and now everyone with a connection has a blog. As it was put by a medical doctor \"We don't know much, and much of what we know is wrong\".</p>\n\n<p>I think the site will attract higher level participants in a public beta, and that it will fill a needed place for people to go for quality advice and answers.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 102, "author": "Zaralynda", "author_id": 62, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/62", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>In private beta folks are reaching for questions and not coming on them organically (as part of their daily life). As such, they seem to be rather vague and not well thought out.</p>\n\n<p>For example, in a subject that I know a lot about, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/migraine\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;migraine&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">migraine</a> (I've had chronic (i.e. daily) migraines for 3 years, and had intermittent migraines all of my life).</p>\n\n<p>There are currently two questions in that tag, and neither is very interesting to me. One is unanswerable (how is the cause of migraines determined other than trial and error? It's not, trial and error is still used) and the other is irrelevant to a migraine sufferer (how to determine severity of a migraine? It doesn't matter, an official classification as \"severe\" or \"mild\" doesn't change the impact on your daily life).</p>\n\n<p>I suspect (based on my experience with the way Pets.SE has aged) that the questions will get better (and have better answers) as people go through their daily lives and come up with questions and then think \"huh, I should ask that on Health.SE\" instead of opening a box at Health.SE and thinking \"what can I post here\".</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>HOWEVER, I do have a major concern when that shift starts happening.</p>\n\n<p>We've faced a consistent problem with <a href=\"http://pets.stackexchange.com\">Pets.SE</a> that I totally expect to see here. People will type stuff into the question window that will make you scream \"WHY ARE YOU ON THE COMPUTER AND NOT VISITING A PROFESSIONAL\".</p>\n\n<p>Examples:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https://pets.stackexchange.com/questions/3149/kitten-very-nervous-and-lack-of-energy\">Kitten very nervous and lack of energy</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"https://pets.stackexchange.com/questions/2096/what-do-i-do-with-a-dog-who-vomits-while-recovering-from-surgery\">What do I do with a do who vomits while recovering from surgery</a> (followed the next day by <a href=\"https://pets.stackexchange.com/questions/2119/my-post-surgery-dog-is-not-eating-is-pooping-and-is-breathing-heavy-how-can-i\">My Post surgery dog is not eating, is pooping, and is breathing heavy. How can I help her?</a>)</li>\n<li><a href=\"https://pets.stackexchange.com/questions/6396/20-yr-old-cat-litterbox-issue\">20 year old cat litter box issue.</a></li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>We've <a href=\"https://pets.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/798/should-medical-emergencies-always-be-off-topic\">discussed if these types of questions should be automatically closed</a>, and (after about 18 months in beta) we've come to the consensus that they should be left open. We can still provide some assistance. </p>\n\n<p>Sometimes the person has talked to their vet, but the vet didn't give them very detailed information or the person wasn't in a frame of mind to remember/absorb the information. One example was <a href=\"https://pets.stackexchange.com/questions/5627/my-cat-ate-a-part-of-a-balloon-what-should-i-do/5628\">My cat ate (part of) a balloon. What should I do?</a>. The pet owner remembered to watch for \"strange behavior\" and we were able to answer with some specific behaviors to look for.</p>\n\n<p>In other cases we try to outline how serious the situation is to convince the person to take their animal to the vet, such as <a href=\"https://pets.stackexchange.com/questions/6245/what-can-i-do-for-my-turtle-that-fell-down-three-floors\">What can I do for my turtle who fell down three floors?</a></p>\n\n<p>We've also given advice on how to talk to veterinarians (what types of questions to ask), such as <a href=\"https://pets.stackexchange.com/questions/7465/tightly-curled-over-tail-and-strange-gait/7466\">Tightly curled over tail and strange gait.</a></p>\n\n<p>This type of stuff is helpful, but I'm not sure if it's the right approach on a site for <em>human</em> health.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 623, "author": "Fred.A", "author_id": 6434, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/6434", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "<p>i have recently joined the website to ask a couple of questions and have felt that it is right to answer some questions back.</p>\n\n<p>Now, I might not know the full answer to something but if I have a partial answer or can give a clear direction as to how and where to look then this shouldn't be a problem. </p>\n\n<p>So I find that when people don't like my answer they use many excuses to delete where they could accept that it is for the person asking the question to work with me who is answering it, if they wish to have further information such as references.</p>\n\n<p>I'd like to point out that when we learn things we often forget the reference source so it is far too time consuming to reference every thing in an answer, the responsibility is upon people to satisfy themselves that the answers that they read is suitable for them. Not everything has an immediate right or wrong answer.</p>\n\n<p>I have found that the learning curve is very steep in this website for the beginner to the point of perfectionism as people (moderators or users with power) take a very punitive administration style.</p>\n\n<p>I am very unhappy that were certain users are unhappy with my answer they are adversely marking comments for deletion without providing guidance or support. I very much object to this style of marking things to be deleted by some administrator where no one else has objected.</p>\n\n<p>this approach is very dry and insulting. Moderators should leave a comment and not delete answers just because they are in their opinion in complete.</p>\n\n<p>I also very much dislike collective action where one moderator votes down an answer and others swarm in voting down like a pack of wolfs.</p>\n\n<p>There is t my experience no peer mentoring and no active support or encouragement for new person's like me who has to face repeated unconstructive criticism from this website reviewing user accounts.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 624, "author": "John", "author_id": 5266, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/5266", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "<h1>Overall Impression</h1>\n\n<p>I joined into this site as it has a lot of cross-over from physical fitness stack exchange, especially with diet and such. I saw the quality of posts on here and encouraged by the volume of posts per day I set to work on flagging and answering. </p>\n\n<p>After a few weeks I have noticed a few things, good points first:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>There are a lot of newer users (&lt;200 rep) answering questions.</li>\n<li>The appointed mods (JohnP looking at you) that are reasonably active in their moderation.</li>\n<li>There are a lot of questions being asked.</li>\n<li>Some of the questions are brilliant, and the OP's are keen to challenge answers put forward. For example: <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/7543/uti-bacteria-climbing-up-urine-stream\">UTI bacteria climbing up urine stream!</a></li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>Onto some 'areas for improvement' or 'opportunities':</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>The middle ground of users with experience from 500-5000 are non-existent. Where are the regulars?</li>\n<li><a href=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/aiHS0.jpg\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">The moderator queue is just not being touched regularly enough</a></li>\n<li>The high level answers don't seem to have references often and users think that a unreferenced answer is okay.</li>\n</ul>\n\n<h1>Userbase</h1>\n\n<p>It appears that the active user base for SE at the moment is a mix of Indians, British and Americans (some Canadians). There is a clash with the British evident. As a Brit, I get free healthcare from qualified professionals in a accredited building 24hrs a day 7 days a week, 365 days a year, I just have to pay a fixed price for prescriptions. Americans and Indians do not have that luxury and I think this is the reason we get so many \"please diagnose X\" questions; because the users want to see if a easy fix is available to them to save them a buck (or rupee).</p>\n\n<p>Of course, all of the above paragraph is pissing blindly off a cliff so I may be wrong. But you asked for my impression and there it is. </p>\n\n<h1>Moderation</h1>\n\n<p>The appointed moderators are tip-top, no issue there. The community rep-appointed moderators don't exist in a large enough number to moderate the volume of posts coming through. </p>\n\n<h1>Meta Discussion</h1>\n\n<p>What meta discussion? I <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/620/off-topic-tools-tutorials-off-site-resource\">asked a question</a> a few days ago and it has 16 views and no answers. That is pathetic for the question volume/visits on this site!</p>\n\n<h1>Tags/Wiki</h1>\n\n<p>Tags are in pretty good shape, lots of sensible options available, the wiki for those tags is pretty bare-bones though.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/69", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/29/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 76, "author": "Mooseman", "author_id": 25, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/25", "pm_score": 4, "selected": true, "text": "<p>I'm in the states and commonly use \"GP\". \"Family doctor\" is more common though.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 77, "author": "kenorb", "author_id": 114, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/114", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Wiki says about <a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_practitioner\" rel=\"nofollow\">GP</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>The term general practitioner or <strong>GP</strong> is common in the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom and several Commonwealth countries. In these countries the word physician is largely reserved for certain other types of medical specialists, notably in internal medicine. While in these countries, the term GP has a clearly defined meaning, in North America the term has become somewhat ambiguous, and is not necessarily synonymous with the term \"<strong>family doctor</strong>\" or primary care provider, as described below.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>On <a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_medicine\" rel=\"nofollow\">Family medicine</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>In Europe the discipline is often referred to as general practice and a practitioner as a General Practice Doctor or GP; this name emphasises the holistic nature of this speciality, as well as its roots in the family.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Based on above it seems GP is used across many English speaking countries including Europe, not only in the UK.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/74", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/163/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 80, "author": "michaelpri", "author_id": 26, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26", "pm_score": 4, "selected": true, "text": "<p>I'll answer your second question first. </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>More generally, is it OK if the scope of this site overlaps with biology.SE</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>A lot of SE sites overlap with other sites, so this is fine. Example: StackOverflow can overlap with Vi and Vim, Programmers, Wordpress, etc. This shouldn't be a problem at all.</p>\n\n<p>Now to the other question.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Are questions about mechanisms of human physiologic and/or pathopysiologic phenomena on topic here?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Physiology is \"the biological study of the functions of living organisms and their parts.\" Pathophysiology is \"the functional changes associated with or resulting from disease or injury.\" For some health questions, you will have to dive into physiology and pathophysiology a little bit to get answers. I think that questions that involve these can be on-topic, as long as the question presents an actual medical problem. I feel that <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/259/what-causes-body-parts-to-fall-asleep\">my question</a>, even though it is on-topic on Bio.SE, is a that has to do with health, and is therefore a good fit for this site.</p>\n\n<p>Allowing these types of question to be on-topic may cause some extra overlap, but that is to be expected with sites like these. There will still be more than enough questions that won't overlap, as Bio.SE doesn't only deal with human biology, and a lot of Health questions wouldn't fit under the scope of Biology.SE.</p>\n\n<p>In fact, this could be a healthy overlap. We might get questions here that aren't on-topic, so we can migrate them to Bio.SE and vice-versa.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 81, "author": "Pobrecita", "author_id": 167, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/167", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I will go 1 answer at a time: </p>\n\n<p>Are questions about mechanisms of human physiologic and/or pathopysiologic phenomena on topic here?</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>Yes. As long as it pertains to your physical being and/or a disease process. I think that there is a cutoff to what should be added to this, but for starters I think some is important.</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>More generally, is it OK if the scope of this site overlaps with biology.SE?</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>Yes. A lot of SE's have overlapping content. But as long as the sites are mostly different in scope and post content, then that is ok. As some homework, we should focus on making the scope as different from Biology as we can while still staying with our goals and site definition.</li>\n</ul>\n" }, { "answer_id": 235, "author": "Monica Cellio", "author_id": 290, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/290", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Not really an answer but this won't fit in a comment and this is meta so maybe that's ok...</p>\n\n<p>I asked <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/q/663/290\">this question about physiology related to glaucoma</a>, and commented that I didn't know if that was on-topic here. (I hadn't yet seen this meta question.) If I had thought is were definitely off-topic I wouldn't have asked it. My reasoning for asking it here rather than Biology.SE was this: it seems to me that health people will know more about relevant physiology than biology people will know about relevant diseases. Medicine requires that you learn <em>some</em> physiology to understand the effects of diseases and health conditions. While I assume there's <em>some</em> level of the inverse -- that studying biology requires some understanding of certain diseases and conditions -- I'm guessing that the balance leans toward asking such questions here.</p>\n\n<p>So that was my reasoning, but I also knew that I was pushing on scope a little bit when I asked it.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/79", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/165/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 289, "author": "Kenshin", "author_id": 83, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/83", "pm_score": -1, "selected": true, "text": "<p>Yes I believe such questions should definitely be on-topic, and this will be consistent with the vision our users had for this site when it was on area51.</p>\n\n<p>Often such questions are being closed as unanswerable without a physical examination or further tests or questions. This however could not be further from the truth. A differential diagnosis can be listed given only a limited amount of information. </p>\n\n<p>If a question asks, \"what disease do I have\" then I agree that this is unanswerable, but if the question asks \"what diseases could I have given the information I am presenting\" then this is definitely answerable and we go through questions like this constantly in medical school.</p>\n\n<p>Therefore I propose that these questions be on-topic initially and see if we are able to handle them well in practice or not.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 290, "author": "Susan", "author_id": 165, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/165", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>In way of explanation for those who don’t encounter such terms regularly, <a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_diagnosis\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">differential diagnosis</a> (a.k.a. Ddx) is the process of distinguishing between multiple possible disease processes that may be causing a particular sign or symptom. The term “differential” is sometimes used as shorthand notation to refer to the list of possible diagnoses. </p>\n\n<p>Working through a differential diagnosis is one of the most challenging and delightful parts of medicine. To be done well, it requires a combination of art, science, and intimate knowledge of the patient’s story, their medical history, and available data.</p>\n\n<p>Despite this personalized aspect, there is a framework of differential diagnosis that is brought to bear when approaching any particular patient. For instance, <a href=\"http://books.google.com/books/about/Harrison_s_Principles_of_Internal_Medici.html?id=7gxjMV8hClsC\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine</a> organizes the entire second section of the book (chapters 11 through 60) according to “clinical manifestations and presentations of disease.” The goal of each chapter is to explain the approach to differential diagnosis of a particular symptom or set of related symptoms. <a href=\"https://i.imgur.com/yckpVNO.png\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">The differential diagnosis of abdominal pain</a> is a classic example. </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Should we allow questions that ask for a list of possible causes given some known information or not?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>I don’t think there is a Yes | No answer that will apply to every question. These fall into a couple categories:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li><p><strong>Too broad</strong>: I do indeed think many of these are too broad. </p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>What is the <a href=\"https://i.imgur.com/yckpVNO.png\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">differential diagnosis of abdominal pain</a>? </li>\n</ul></li>\n<li><p><strong>Too personal</strong>: Frequently, in order to make a question more specific, one needs to provide a few details.</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>I have abdominal pain that started 18 hours ago when it was intermittent, located in the mid-abdomen, and accompanied by anorexia. The pain has now shifted to the right lower quadrant and is constant, worse with movement, and more severe. I have also developed nausea and vomiting. What is my diagnosis?</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>This, I think, falls into the category of <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/a/258/165\">personal medical advice</a> and is off topic for that reason.</p></li>\n<li><p><strong>Probably OK</strong>: </p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>What types of things cause abdominal pain that occurs consistently after eating? </li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>This has a reasonably scoped differential diagnosis, and I can imagine an answer that outlined a few basic mechanisms of what might cause this pattern and gave the primary diagnostic possibilities.</p></li>\n</ol>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>_{\nNote: If this were phrased, “I have abdominal pain after I eat. What is my diagnosis?” it shifts it from category 3 into category 2. Although it’s only a difference in phraseology, I think we need to use language here that reminds us all that <strong>we do not make personal diagnoses.</strong>\n}</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/84", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/83/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 89, "author": "Shlublu", "author_id": 102, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/102", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I'm not sure an accepted answer prevents anyone else from answering too, that's hard to figure out. If a new answer is better than the accepted one, the OP is still free to unaccept the first and accept the second, but do users know, does it happen often, etc...</p>\n\n<p>In the principle, I think accepting an answer as soon as it actually answers the question is fine. </p>\n\n<p>(Note: edited, as reading other answers and comments led me to reconsider my opinion)</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 90, "author": "michaelpri", "author_id": 26, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I think that yes, we are being a bit too quick to accept. Accepting answers in important, as it lets people know what the best answer is (usually), but if an answer is accepted when there are no other answers to compete with it, we can't truly know if that is that case. Of course, an answer can be accepted if it is the only answer after a few hours/days, but if an answer is accepted right after it is posted, then that will deter people from answering too. People want to gain rep, and if they see an answer is already accepted, then they probably won't even try to answer, even if their information is valuable. Not enough answers per question is a problem that I think this community might have, and quickly accepting answers might make it even worse.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 123, "author": "Tim", "author_id": 163, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/163", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>This is what I commented when someone said this should be the accepted answer. My opinion hasn't changed.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Should be the accepted answer. – Nate Barbettini 2 days ago</p>\n<p>@NateBarbettini I didn't accept because this answer focused on what to do to a heat burn not why butter is bad. I upvoted because a lot of time and effort was clearly put in (and all the information seemed correct) but it was posted at 08:54:51, which quite a lot after I had accepted the previous answer at 08:05:28. I do know I can un accept and accept a new answer but a) I don't like doing that because it's like giving someone a prize and then taking it away later and b) As I said, this is a good answer for <em>what to do if you have a heat burn</em>, but not <em>would butter help on burns?</em>. – Tim</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>I stand by what I said. An accepted answer means my problem has been solved, so when an answer solves my question, I accept it. I am unlikely to un accept and accept another, however I do often upvotes a later answer. As @Shlublu says, there is <em>nothing wrong with accepting an answer as soon as it answers the question</em>.</p>\n<p>Yes, it was a quick accept (10 minutes) but what are accepts for? If people want to not answer the question because I've accepted it, more fool them. If they're just here for the accept rep bonus, they're here for the wrong reasons.</p>\n<p>I'd also like to add that I wouldn't have accepted this answer in the first place. As I have said, multiple times, this is a <em>very</em> good (I'd go so far as to say exceptionally good) answer for <em><code>&quot;What to do if you have a heat burn&quot;</code></em>, but not <em><code>&quot;Would butter help on burns?&quot;</code></em>. I am honoured that someone would take the time to write an answer like that, but I do want my question answered (which he did) but it had no more information than the previous one that had been written (and accepted).</p>\n<p>Now maybe I am accepting too fast. I can see why people think that - I am supporting the FGITW problem, but I think that is reasonable. The quickest answer <em>does</em> get the reward <em>if</em> it is good enough. I would never accept a one word answer as quickly as I accepted that but, it answered my question, and I wanted to reward them. I <em>have</em> upvoted the later answer, and I can see it has got more votes than the other, but I'm not going to change my decision (or my future habits) based on this Meta Discussion.</p>\n<p>Sorry.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 140, "author": "James Jenkins", "author_id": 15, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/15", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>During the private beta, we are working to develop the site. Personally I almost never accept an answer until a week after the public beta. This encourages site activity in the important first week of launch. </p>\n\n<p>After private beta, there still is no reason to rush to mark as accepted. While it is possible (and fairly easy) to move acceptance from one answer to another, it is not a race. The first answer may or may not be the best, give everyone a couple days to post answers before choosing the one that works best for you. </p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/88", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/64/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 96, "author": "Nate Barbettini", "author_id": 59, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/59", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>In my opinion, <strong>questions about</strong> alternative medicine and <strong>answers involving</strong> alternative medicine should be handled in totally different ways.</p>\n\n<p>My theory is that well-formed <strong>questions</strong> are always good, no matter the belief system of the asker. So, for instance, questions like, \"Does homeopathy really work?\", \"Should I rely on faith healing?\", \"Do vaccines cause autism?\" - should be totally on-topic because they give someone a chance to give a good answer. \"Good\" in this case would likely be \"no\", with plenty of evidence to back it up.</p>\n\n<p>If the site gets flooded with permutations of the above questions (\"<em>Which</em> homeopathic remedy should I use for X\"), I think we could treat them as duplicates.</p>\n\n<p><strong>Answers</strong> are totally different. I personally think that Health.SE should have a strict \"citations, please\" attitude regarding answers, and answers containing advice from alternative medicine should be discouraged, if not downvoted or removed outright. There are enough places on the web to find that nonsense.</p>\n\n<p>I'm not sure how I currently feel about semi-alternative answers such as recommending yoga or Ayurvedic practice, if it carries a disclaimer that it isn't the same as primary care.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 105, "author": "Kenshin", "author_id": 83, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/83", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "<p>As already discussed during the commitment phase of the proposal, alternative medicine questions are on-topic. Answers may address alternative, non-evidenced based medicine ONLY if:</p>\n\n<p>(1) the question explicitly asks for an alternative medicine perspective AND</p>\n\n<p>(2) the answer makes it clear that the answer is written is a perspective from alternative medicine.</p>\n\n<p>Otherwise be default, we should assume all questions are asking for an evidenced based medicine perspective and provide evidenced based answers accordingly.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 145, "author": "Tom Medley", "author_id": 200, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/200", "pm_score": 4, "selected": true, "text": "<h1>No</h1>\n<p>What is alternative medicine? There are a wealth of widely adopted 'alternative' practices, from Homeopathy (which continues to be offered on the NHS in the UK), to Crystal Healing, to - well - almost anything.</p>\n<p>The problem is that alternative medicine is anything that anyone thinks works, for curing any ailment. Either we have to choose which fields we are prepared to deal with (say, only Homeopathy and Ayurvedic?), or we're going to have a huge problem in:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Providing the breadth of expertise required</li>\n<li>Being taken seriously by those with expertise in evidence-based medicine</li>\n<li>Forming a community that doesn't tear itself apart from arguing about this stuff</li>\n</ul>\n<p>I propose that <em>questions</em> asking about alternative medicine are <strong>off-topic</strong>. As for answers, I'm not actually so concerned, we have a system in place for dealing with wrong answers: downvotes.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/95", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 100, "author": "michaelpri", "author_id": 26, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>From the examples you give, it does not seem like these types of questions would be on-topic, but I think there is a chance that they could be on-topic if worded right.</p>\n\n<p>For your examples:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>What are the benefits of seeing a trans-specific primary care doctor?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Seems like this one would be opinionated and probably a little too broad. </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Should I ask questions about possible drug interactions to my doctor or pharmacist?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>This one would also probably be closed as opinionated. It might also be too personal.</p>\n\n<p>I have seen a question that I do think is on-topic that has to deal with the healthcare system though.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/35/should-i-go-to-the-occupational-therapist-or-the-physical-therapist-if-i-have-a/36#36\">Should I go to the occupational therapist or the physical therapist if I have a tendinopathy in the USA?</a></p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>I think question like this would be on-topic. Other similar questions could also be on-topic, such as</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Which doctor should I go to if I have {x}?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Some of these questions would be opinionated, but if they are worded correctly, I think they would be on-topic.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 104, "author": "anongoodnurse", "author_id": 169, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/169", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I haven't read through all of the meta questions to know if this has been discussed before, but as a health-care professional, I believe sharing information on how best to interact with the health-care system would be very much on topic.</p>\n\n<p>Who wouldn't like the inside scoop on which doctors are capable of handling problem X and for which do you need a specialist? Or, if you can't afford a patient-advocate to accompany you to your father's visit to the oncologist, what's the next best thing?</p>\n\n<p>Yes, opinions are opinions, but isn't the point of this site to get a professional's perspective?</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/99", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/173/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 108, "author": "Shlublu", "author_id": 102, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/102", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I would be in favor of using both, as synonyms.</p>\n\n<p>The rationale behind this is that depending on who you are as a user, you may be interested in one or the other. </p>\n\n<p>(Just an) example: in first aid, a layman may be interested in searching or to tag a question with \"nose bleed\". A CFR, an EMT, etc, would be prone to use \"epistaxis\" instead, like a kind of conditioned reflex.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 109, "author": "Patrick Hoefler", "author_id": 113, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/113", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "<p>While the <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/q/39/113\">focus of Health SE is still being discussed</a>, the <a href=\"http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/66048/health\">original site description</a> so far has been:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Health SE is a Q&amp;A site for medical specialists, students, dietitians and anyone with health-related questions.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Medical specialists, students and dietitians should understand medical terms, and they will also use these terms while (re)searching. However, most people with health-related questions who are not part of any of the former groups will probably have no idea what <em>renal calculi</em> are.</p>\n\n<p>This is why I suggest the following approach:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Use generic layman's terms for tagging, and add technical medical terms\n as tag synonyms.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>For an example, have a look at <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/a/64/113\">Kevin's answer</a> (that actually inspired this answer).</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/107", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/113/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 114, "author": "Joe W", "author_id": 38, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/38", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Part of the problem is that some of your answers have no evidence to support them when they are easily testable.</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/67/are-essential-oils-good-disinfectants/216#216\">Are essential oils good disinfectants?</a></p>\n\n<p>Your answer to this question is something that is not influenced by belief at all and you have provided no evidence why non-synthetic non-alcoholic products should be used as a disinfectant. Doing a study to show the effects that they have on the bacteria and viruses on the object they are being used on and how long they stay around afterwords is not hard to do. Even if all you do is provide a study that shows the differences in how effective they are in keeping things free of bacteria and viruses.</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/83/why-does-whooping-cough-last-so-long-and-can-the-duration-of-cough-be-reduced/207#207\">Why does whooping cough last so long and can the duration of cough be reduced?</a> </p>\n\n<p>In this one you give some theories but you don't seem to actually provide an answer</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/259/what-causes-body-parts-to-fall-asleep/265#265\">What causes body parts to fall asleep?</a> </p>\n\n<p>I might just be picky in this case but you are stating wrong information here, while oxygen is critical to a cell's survival it isn't used as food but rather to transform the food it gets into energy and water. </p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/100/how-exact-are-the-times-for-how-long-to-wait-between-pills/206#206\">How exact are the times for how long to wait between pills?</a></p>\n\n<p>It shouldn't be that hard to find some evidence on this one to support not taking a double dose to make up for a missed on or what should be done when you miss a dose.</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>One thing I will point out is that when it comes to medicine there will always be controversy over what is good \"Science\". A quick place to look is at the vaccine debate where you will find that both sides have \"Evidence\" and \"Proof\" that they are right. Even if it has been later shown that one of the major anti-vaccine studies was falsified and not at all accurate.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 116, "author": "Shlublu", "author_id": 102, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/102", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I don't think you should delete your account. As you could see, some are open to the kind of answers you provide, some are not, and all for valid reasons: belief, culture, science...</p>\n\n<p>As you said \"believe it or leave it\". You cannot expect those who don't believe in Ayurvedic to upvote an answer based on Ayurvedic. You cannot blame them for downvoting either, as if you don't believe in it, it just doesn't work as per what you clearly said (which doesn't mean it works otherwise, this is another question I don't want to dig into here). </p>\n\n<p>This doesn't prevent those who believe in it to welcome such answers. </p>\n\n<p>And it doesn't prevent you from documenting your answers with Ayurvedic sources. I'm quite sure this exists.</p>\n\n<p>The rest is all statistics. Out of 100 users, how many are open to such answers and how many aren't? We actually don't control the users. Which is fine, this is the purpose of SE: the site is owned by its community.</p>\n\n<p>The only limits, thoroughly discussed elsewhere in this meta, are the scope (what is off-topic is likely to receive close votes), the law (substituting for a doctor is not legal is many countries), the documentation (whatever your school is, \"I think\" answers or \"The common belief is\" answers are not welcome here as answers are expected to be established), and so on. </p>\n\n<p>This question is not limited to Ayurvedic by the way. A similar issue happened today with chiropratic, which has a legal status in certain countries, just tolerated in some others, and legal but criticized in others... Let the community decide. Users are not just followers, they are also experts for a part of them. Just back up your answers with your branch's best sources.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/111", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/149/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 113, "author": "Tim", "author_id": 163, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/163", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "<p>We should downvote if there are no sources, unless it is widely known (for example, the statement &quot;If you get too cold you die&quot; is a little unnecessary to backup. The actual temperature (35°C/95°F and less) should be linked.</p>\n<hr />\n<p><strong>What sites?</strong></p>\n<p>These sites are reputable and I would use as a reference. I have made this CW, please edit to include more. Note that this is <em>not</em> a whitelist. This is just suggestions if you need a site and want to know that at least one other person approves. Please use citation not inline link style.</p>\n<p>US:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><p><a href=\"http://www.hhs.gov\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Health and Human Services (US)</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"http://www.cdc.gov/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Center for Disease Control (US)</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"http://www.nih.gov/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">National Institutes of Health (US)</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://www.aap.org/en-us/Pages/Default.aspx\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">American Academy of Pediatrics</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://www.aafp.org\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">American Academy of Family Physicians</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"http://www.fda.gov/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Food and Drug Administration (US)</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">National Center for Biotechnology Information (US)</a></p>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"http://www.nlm.nih.gov/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">U.S. National Library of Medicine</a> an National Institutes of Health (NIH)</p>\n<ul>\n<li><p><a href=\"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">PubMed</a></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>PubMed comprises more than 24 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books.</p>\n</blockquote>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Toxicology Data Network</a></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Databases on toxicology, hazardous chemicals, environmental health, and toxic releases.</p>\n</blockquote>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://clinicaltrials.gov/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Clinical Trials</a></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>A registry and results database of publicly and privately supported clinical studies of human participants conducted around the world.</p>\n</blockquote>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"http://collections.nlm.nih.gov/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Digital Collections</a></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Free online resource of biomedical books.</p>\n</blockquote>\n</li>\n</ul>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<p>UK:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"http://www.bmj.com/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal)</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"https://www.pharmacopoeia.com/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">British Pharmacopoeia Commission</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"https://www.medicines.org.uk\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">electronic Medicines Compendium (eMC)</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-health-and-social-care\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Government Department of Health</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/medicines-and-healthcare-products-regulatory-agency\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Medicines &amp; Healthcare products Regulatory Agency</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"http://www.nhs.uk/Pages/HomePage.aspx\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">National Health Service (UK)</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"https://www.nice.org.uk/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Public Health England</a></li>\n</ul>\n<p>EU:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"http://www.efsa.europa.eu/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">European Food Safety Authority</a></li>\n</ul>\n<p>Australia:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><p><a href=\"https://www.tga.gov.au/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Therapeutic Goods Administration</a> (TGA), Australian regulatory body.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>As part of the Department of Health, TGA safeguards and enhances the health of the Australian community through effective and timely regulation of therapeutic goods.</p>\n</blockquote>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Other:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"http://www.cochranelibrary.com/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Cochrane Library</a>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Collection of databases in medicine and other healthcare specialties</p>\n</blockquote>\n</li>\n<li><a href=\"https://www.who.int/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">World Health Organization (WHO)</a>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https://www.who.int/health-topics/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Health Topics</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"https://www.who.int/countries/en/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">By Country</a></li>\n</ul>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Scientific journals:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><p><a href=\"http://arxiv.org/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">arXiv</a> at Cornell University Library</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Open access to 1,026,943 e-prints in Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Quantitative Biology, Quantitative Finance and Statistics</p>\n</blockquote>\n</li>\n<li><p><a href=\"http://www.andjrnl.org/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics</a></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Source for the practice and science of food, nutrition, and dietetics.</p>\n</blockquote>\n</li>\n<li><p>see more on Wikipedia:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_journals\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">List of scientific journals</a>,</li>\n<li><a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open_access_journals\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">List of open access journals</a>,</li>\n<li><a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_medical_and_health_informatics_journals\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">List of medical and health informatics journals</a>,</li>\n<li><a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_medical_journals\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">List of medical journals</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nursing_journals\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">List of nursing journals</a></li>\n</ul>\n</li>\n</ul>\n" }, { "answer_id": 115, "author": "Shlublu", "author_id": 102, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/102", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I don't thik we should start building a list of trusted sources (this is what we are doing by filling the <strong>What Sites</strong> list): will an approval process be required when later on someone will want to add an entry to this list? </p>\n\n<p>Users are able to evaluate the reliability of the sources, case by case, as they do with the answer itself. At least statistically: bad source will just mean bad score.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 303, "author": "cirko", "author_id": 514, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/514", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>If an answer by a recognized MD, maybe even specialized in the field the question is asked in, would not be accepted as an answer, then one should ask himself: Why would I go do a doctor when he doesn't cite the sources the communitywiki described for every sentence he says?</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>We should downvote if there are no sources, unless it is widely known (for example, the statement \"If you get too cold you die\" is a little unnecessary to backup. The actual temperature (35 C and less) should be linked.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>To such a specialized MD, the statement \"widely known\" will have another meaning than to a normal user. And also note that it's this group of people who writes \nthe articles you'd like to have as citations. </p>\n\n<p>So my answer to your question would be:\nIf there is a possibility to identify a user as a specialist in the field the question is asked in, an answer can be accepted without citations. If not, citations will be required for backing up the statements.</p>\n\n<p>Please also note that decision-making in clinical environments is also not only not entirely based on evidence (as many mechanisms of treatments that evidentially help are simply unkown), but also rely on experience which is only in latter stages eventually transformed into citable articles. This is always a matter for discussion amongst professionals, but should it therefore be completely left out of this site? In that case, chances are high that not the best answer to the question, but the most citable one will end up as most upvoted (or least downvoted).</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 340, "author": "Pacerier", "author_id": 251, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/251", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I would caution that it is important to state the (mal)intentions of the \"research\" or \"study\", especially so for times when there is a <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest\" rel=\"nofollow\">conflict of interest</a> or probable suspicion of <a href=\"http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/\" rel=\"nofollow\">intellectual dishonesty</a>. </p>\n\n<p>For example, if <a href=\"http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2012/11/01/bar-soap-vs-body-wash-which-one-is-best-for-you/#post-8187\" rel=\"nofollow\">\"a study to investigate the safety of bar soap was done by a major company that makes bar soap\"</a>, the reader would probably decide to delve furthur, to read up on the methodology of the \"research\" to see if there are any possible inaccuries or biasness involved.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 546, "author": "Jan", "author_id": 3002, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/3002", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Reliable source should show a <strong>documented evidence.</strong> Nothing to say against Mayo Clinic or WebMD, but their articles usually do not have any reference links...so how do you know if what they say is evidence or not. Evidence comes from published studies, not from doctors' or institutions' opinions. </p>\n\n<p>For \"Is it possible?\" questions, quote a <strong>case study</strong> from an online medical journal (abstracts are often available in PubMed). So, if it is documented that it has happened, it probably is possible...</p>\n\n<p>For \"Does it work...is it effective\" questions, quote <strong>one or more systematic reviews.</strong> Often, one study will say that something works and another one that it doesn't. A systematic review at least tries to narrow down all the randomness and remove low quality studies...Most systematic reviews are available on PubMed. In a search engine type: site:gov keywords \"systematic review\" and it will usually lead you to PubMed. </p>\n\n<p>PubMed is a library of studies, not a \"website\" so it should not be considered good or bad by itself.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 563, "author": "Count Iblis", "author_id": 856, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/856", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Only secondary or tertiary review articles that are widely cited in the literature are reliable sources. Peer reviewed articles are not necessarily reliable sources to back up statements; the whole point of publishing research results is to make a relevant point in the scientific discourse about the subject under discussion. It's then not necessarily the case that what is written in the article is actually correct. In many cases it can make a point that is not widely supported in the scientific community. This is why it is better not to cite primary research articles to back up statements in an authoritative way and instead only use secondary or tertiary review articles. for that purpose.</p>\n\n<p>Primary research articles can be used as examples about e.g. recent research or to make a point other than to support the reliability of your answer. This is why I'm not in favor of the requirement of backing up answers here by citing references. In many cases good answers cannot be backed up adequately. By not citing references one makes clear that the given answer may lack a rigorous scientific basis, which would then distinguishes that answer form another answer that does have such references. But that other answer isn't necessarily better, often what can be proven rigorously are weaker statements.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 574, "author": "Franck Dernoncourt", "author_id": 43, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/43", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>The medical research literature is rife with badly designed studies (and has a strong <a href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKmxL8VYy0M\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">publication bias</a>). This leads to, e.g. <a href=\"https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/12520/7654\">up to 70% of scientific studies not be reproduced</a>. So even published studies are often not so reliable. One way to sort this mess would be to establish some basic <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/q/5381/43\">criteria for assessing the quality of evidence in a medical research article</a>.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 733, "author": "BillDOe", "author_id": 2833, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/2833", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "<p>If I can add my $0.02 worth: I think we need to recognize what type of information is being cited. Certainly the listed sources have reliable medical information, but often we have a need to cite sources for pharmacology, nutrition, biology, chemistry, and maybe even physics (and probably a few others I haven't thought of). The listed sources may or may not be reliable repositories for that information, and often mundane sources like Wikipedia may. </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 742, "author": "Hamman Samuel", "author_id": 77, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/77", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "<p>The <a href=\"https://www.tripdatabase.com/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">TRIP database</a> is a very good resource to use in this case. It arranges results by <a href=\"http://canberra.libguides.com/c.php?g=599346&amp;p=4149721\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">hierarchy of evidence</a> including systematic reviews, clinically-appraised topics &amp; articles, randomized controlled trials. TRIP also cross-references various trusted medical journals and databases talked about here in other answers, including NIH's PubMed and MEDLINE indices. All of this is available via a text box and search button, so it's also very easy for users to look up keywords.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/112", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 118, "author": "michaelpri", "author_id": 26, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "<p>These are good questions that must addressed. </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Is importing an answer from another SE site acceptable? What if it is one's own answer?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>I think it is acceptable to use an SE answer from another site, and even this site too, as long as you link to the original answer like you would with a regular online source and you acknowledge the writer of the original (and maybe link to their profile too). It may even be nice to to tell the user if possible, but this shouldn't be required. Using your own answer as a reference is fine, too. In fact, I have done this multiple times on this site already. <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/a/261/26\">The answer</a> you mentioned does this properly.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>On some SE sites, such as EL&amp;U, unattributed sources are deleted on site for plagiarism. Will we have the same policy?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>I think that we should have this policy even though it may be hard to moderate. On answers that don't have references it will probably be easy to tell if there is plagiarism. There can't really be plagiarism on answers that do have references but it is still a good think to look out for. </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 127, "author": "Garrett", "author_id": 86, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/86", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I'll answer the first question, which was:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Is importing an answer from another SE site acceptable?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>User-contributed content on all Stack Exchange sites is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license (CC-BY-SA 3.0)^{<a href=\"http://blog.stackexchange.com/category/cc-wiki-dump/\">1</a>}. Therefore, the content may be copied and/or redistributed on any site (including Stack Exchange itself) as long as it is attributed to the author and satisfies the share-alike clause^{<a href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/\" rel=\"nofollow\">2</a>}. The original author does not have the ability to revoke these permissions.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 482, "author": "YviDe", "author_id": 1830, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/1830", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "<blockquote>\n <p>1) Is importing an answer from another SE site acceptable? What if it is one's own answer? I have not seen this done before, and don't know the 'official' policy if there is one.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Adding to the other two answers, I also think that it is perfectly fine to copy another site's answer with attribution. I'd like to add though that I think it's a good idea to mark the answer as a community wiki in that case. That means that the reputation when the answer is voted on or accepted doesn't go to the person who copied the answer. The attribution link might encourage readers to go to the original site and give credit to the original author. </p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/117", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/169/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 122, "author": "Tim", "author_id": 163, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/163", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I think we should be using laymans terms. If we need, add the professional ones as synonyms, but as <em>anyone</em> understands layman terms, we should use that for the widest audience possible.</p>\n\n<p>I would change:</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/neurology\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;neurology&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">neurology</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/otolaryngology\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;otolaryngology&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">otolaryngology</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/cardiology\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;cardiology&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">cardiology</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/pulmonology\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;pulmonology&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">pulmonology</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/gastroenterology\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;gastroenterology&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">gastroenterology</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/nephrology\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;nephrology&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">nephrology</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/urology\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;urology&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">urology</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/gynecology\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;gynecology&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">gynecology</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/musculoskeletal\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;musculoskeletal&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">musculoskeletal</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/podiatry\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;podiatry&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">podiatry</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/endocrinology\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;endocrinology&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">endocrinology</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/infectious-diseases\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;infectious-diseases&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">infectious-diseases</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/dermatology\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;dermatology&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">dermatology</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/ophthalmology\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;ophthalmology&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">ophthalmology</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/allergy\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;allergy&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">allergy</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/hematology\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;hematology&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">hematology</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/oncology\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;oncology&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">oncology</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/rheumatology\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;rheumatology&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">rheumatology</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/sleep-medicine\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;sleep-medicine&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">sleep-medicine</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/psychiatry\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;psychiatry&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">psychiatry</a></p>\n\n<p>to</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/nervous-system\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;nervous-system&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">nervous-system</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/ear\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;ear&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">ear</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/throat\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;throat&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">throat</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/heart\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;heart&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">heart</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/lungs\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;lungs&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">lungs</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/digestion\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;digestion&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">digestion</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/kidneys\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;kidneys&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">kidneys</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/urinary-system\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;urinary-system&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">urinary-system</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/reproductive-system\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;reproductive-system&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">reproductive-system</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/skeleton\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;skeleton&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">skeleton</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/muscles\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;muscles&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">muscles</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/feet\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;feet&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">feet</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/hormones\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;hormones&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">hormones</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/skin\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;skin&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">skin</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/eye\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;eye&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">eye</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/allergies\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;allergies&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">allergies</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/blood\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;blood&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">blood</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/tumors\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;tumors&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">tumors</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/joints\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;joints&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">joints</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/sleep\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;sleep&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">sleep</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/mental-health\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;mental-health&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">mental-health</a></p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 183, "author": "Zaralynda", "author_id": 62, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/62", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>It seems to me that a scheme like this (either scientific or layperson's terms) would require significant intervention from established users to keep up. It's not something that would naturally occur to someone to tag their question unless they were familiar with the community.</p>\n\n<p>We do something similar on Pets.SE (actually each question has 2 tags, one for the animal's species and one for the topic of the question) and we still have to add tags to at least 1/3 of the questions.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 200, "author": "Susan", "author_id": 165, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/165", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>How to interpret he voting on this Q&amp;A is a little unclear to me &mdash; the question with one proposed system is upvoted and the answer with an alternative proposal is downvoted, but I’m not sure if that means the community likes the system presented in the question or they just want <em>some</em> system. As such, I’m offering an answer that can be voted on next to <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/a/122/165\">Tim’s answer</a>. I’m actually not against his system at all, and if the community prefers that please upvote it.</p>\n\n<p>My suggestion is that we use the following, mostly technical tags. (I have pulled apart “otolaryngology” into its component parts and labeled them with common term because it seemed unnecessarily opaque; otherwise these are mostly the suggestions from the question.) Each one should have one or more synonym defined, for which I think Tim’s list would be a great place to start. </p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/neurology\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;neurology&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">neurology</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/ear\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;ear&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">ear</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/nose\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;nose&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">nose</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/throat\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;throat&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">throat</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/cardiology\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;cardiology&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">cardiology</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/pulmonology\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;pulmonology&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">pulmonology</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/gastroenterology\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;gastroenterology&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">gastroenterology</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/nephrology\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;nephrology&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">nephrology</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/urology\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;urology&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">urology</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/gynecology\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;gynecology&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">gynecology</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/obstetrics\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;obstetrics&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">obstetrics</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/pediatrics\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;pediatrics&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">pediatrics</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/musculoskeletal\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;musculoskeletal&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">musculoskeletal</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/podiatry\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;podiatry&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">podiatry</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/endocrinology\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;endocrinology&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">endocrinology</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/infectious-diseases\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;infectious-diseases&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">infectious-diseases</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/dermatology\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;dermatology&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">dermatology</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/ophthalmology\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;ophthalmology&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">ophthalmology</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/allergy\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;allergy&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">allergy</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/hematology\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;hematology&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">hematology</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/oncology\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;oncology&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">oncology</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/rheumatology\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;rheumatology&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">rheumatology</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/sleep\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;sleep&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">sleep</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/psychiatry\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;psychiatry&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">psychiatry</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/pharmacology\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;pharmacology&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">pharmacology</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/epidemiology\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;epidemiology&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">epidemiology</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/nutrition\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;nutrition&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">nutrition</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/toxicology\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;toxicology&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">toxicology</a></li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>I <em>think</em> that most questions here should fall into one or more of these categories. Most questions would also carry a disease-specific, drug-specific, and/or parameter-specific (e.g. <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/blood-pressure\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;blood-pressure&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">blood-pressure</a>) tag. There is also a set of less systematic tags that has popped up including things like <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/side-effects\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;side-effects&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">side-effects</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/heredity\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;heredity&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">heredity</a>, etc. that I think are great supplements.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 593, "author": "Franck Dernoncourt", "author_id": 43, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/43", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Personally I would use <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Subject_Headings\" rel=\"nofollow\">Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)</a> as tags.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/121", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/165/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 125, "author": "Joe W", "author_id": 38, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/38", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I will say I disagree with links behind paywalls because as of now it looks like to me that the large part of the site's audience will not have access to those links. I asked this on <a href=\"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/252881/references-and-content-behind-a-paywall\">meta.stackexchange</a> and got a good answer there about how the paywall links depend on the site in question. It was mentioned that on some sites (Biology and Chemistry) that large groups of the users are in the profession or in school for it so are assumed to have access to the journals in question. However I don't think that the same can be said for this site (at least at this current stage) as the questions seem more from a general audience and not from a professional one. Maybe as the site matures and a more professional /student audience is shown to be here in public beta the stance on paywall links can change but for now I think they should be discouraged. </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 126, "author": "Susan", "author_id": 165, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/165", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "<p>While I agree that research hidden behind paywalls is annoying, to disallow reference to anything that is not available for free is to disallow some of the best research available. I realize we are on a website here, but we live in the real world, and in the real world scientists submit papers to journals based on the topicality and reputation of the journal mostly without regard to whether the paper will be made freely available. </p>\n\n<p>In my opinion, citing papers in academic journals should be done by way of <a href=\"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">PubMed</a>. This is a central repository run by the NIH where pretty much everything related to the bio-medical field is indexed. There is also an abstract for nearly all primary data. The abstract summarizes the point of the trial, the basic methodology, and the findings. The availability of the full text on <a href=\"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">PubMed</a> generally falls into three categories: </p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><p><strong>Available in full from the journal</strong>: <a href=\"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8441427\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Here is an example</a> of a paper I recently cited. You’ll notice that on that page there is a link to free full text from the journal. That’s because it’s an old article, and NEJM makes old things available. </p></li>\n<li><p><strong>Available in full from Pubmed Central</strong>: <a href=\"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24856029\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Here is a (randomly chosen) example</a>. Some journals make all articles immediately available this way. Others choose a few articles (based on mostly mysterious criteria) to publish immediately in Pubmed Central, and others get added later. If you see a Pubmed Central button like the one below, click on that preferentially rather than the journal button. The latter will lead to a paywall in many instances.</p></li>\n</ul>\n\n<p><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/EeeVM.png\" alt=\"enter image description here\"></p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Available only via paywall or library access</strong>: For newer papers, you may see <a href=\"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24560157\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">something like this</a>. This links to the journal itself, where you are prompted to pay or log in. If you are unable to do either, you can’t see the full text. However, note that <strong>the abstract is still available</strong>. <a href=\"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136027/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">An abstract</a> usually contains sections like Background, Methods, Results, and Conclusions. If an SE answer is using the paper to make a point consistent with its main findings, the abstract will provide confirmation of the data cited on SE as well as context.¹ Also, if you click on “author information” in PubMed you can usually find an email address (see below). </li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>If you want more details than those provided in the abstract, there are several choices:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>Ask the answerer. I’ll go on record as more than happy to provide additional info if queried in comments, or to add it to the post if people find that lacking. </li>\n<li><p>Email the corresponding author.² This works remarkably well. Just be respectful, explain why you’re interested and your lack of access to an academic library, and ask politely for a copy of the article or more specifics about the data than available in the abstract.³ Most of the time, the author will just send you a pdf. Emailing this sort of request to a corresponding author is not going to surprise or offend (most of) them.⁴ </p></li>\n<li><p>Look on <a href=\"https://www.academia.edu\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">academia.edu</a>. Many authors upload their papers here.</p></li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>Please see also the <a href=\"https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/q/454/9268\">biology.SE</a> meta post on this topic. More recently, a related question was asked on <a href=\"https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/252881/272257\">meta.SE</a>.</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>Addendum in response to <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/a/125/165\">another answer</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>If an answer has citations and references that are behind a pay wall then it means that other users, the person asking the question especially, have no way of verifying the information presented and that in a way is worse then an answer with no citations.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>In my opinion, an answer that links to a resource that is <strong>not peer-reviewed and does not tell me how they arrived at their conclusions</strong> is less valuable than a resource that has been peer-reviewed, is published in a respectable journal, and has an abstract available on PubMed. </p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>_{\n1. From the <a href=\"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136027/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">linked paper about abstracts</a>: «Thus, for the vast majority of readers, the paper does not exist beyond its abstract. For the referees, and the few readers who wish to read beyond the abstract, the abstract sets the tone for the rest of the paper.»<br>\n}<br>\n_{\n2. If not available in the author information, most university-associated academics have emails that are easily found with a google search or via the university affiliation found in PubMed. \n} </p>\n\n<p>_{\n3. In addition to what I mentioned above, that sort of email should include the full title of the paper, the name of the journal in which it was published, and the year of publication. If you really like health.SE, you could also include a link to the site where you saw their paper referenced. :-)\n} </p>\n\n<p>_{\n4. Please do not upload PDFs of articles that are not made freely available by the journal. Whether you access them through a library or are sent them by an author, they are yours for personal use only.\n}</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 129, "author": "Tim", "author_id": 163, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/163", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<blockquote>\n <ol>\n <li>We could have no preference for publicly available materials. Keep in mind that the answer could quote the pertinent part of research that's hidden behind a paywall. We could even require that a paywalled reference be quoted.</li>\n </ol>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Hmm I don't like browsing the web and having to pay for something - especially as (because of my age) I often <em>can't</em> pay even if I wanted to.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <ol start=\"2\">\n <li>We could encourage or require people to cite publicly available materials wherever possible and only cite publicly available sources when when they're the only resources that support the answer.</li>\n </ol>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Yes. Our aim is to answer questions in the best way we can. For the OP to have their question answered, <em>they need to be able to verify the data</em>. This means it has to be an open paper for that. However, if they have asked for an almost impossible situation, we simply can't be saying \"no private links\". However, we should strongly prefer that free and open links be used.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <ol start=\"3\">\n <li>We could strongly encourage or ban any use of publicly unavailable references. An outright ban may have the effect of banning important research.</li>\n </ol>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>No. As you say, <em>an outright ban may have the effect of banning important research</em> which is never good. However, <strong>the material must, as always, be quoted not just linked to</strong>. It isn't acceptable to just answer with a link (ever) but especially in this case, a quote is needed. If I can't access a link in an answer, and it's not quoted, I down vote.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 589, "author": "Franck Dernoncourt", "author_id": 43, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/43", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<blockquote>\n <p>A lot of research ends up behind expensive paywalls and not accessible to the public.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Almost all research articles are currently available on <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-Hub\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Sci-Hub</a>, free of charge.</p>\n\n<p>FYI <a href=\"https://opendata.stackexchange.com/q/7084/1652\">Bulk download Sci-Hub papers</a>.</p>\n\n<p>I would also point out that even in my university, which pay <a href=\"https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/29923/452\">millions of USD every year for journal subscriptions</a>, I do not have access to many articles. I.e., even researchers don't have access to the findings of their colleagues, unless they bypass paywalls with sci-hub or other similar services.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/124", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/86/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 132, "author": "michaelpri", "author_id": 26, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "<p>White heart with ECG tracing (V1 and V2.0, with more realistic trace, V2.1 curved trace):</p>\n\n<p><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/Lu5EB.png\" width=\"256\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/Lu5EB.png\" width=\"128\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/Lu5EB.png\" width=\"64\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/Lu5EB.png\" width=\"32\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/Lu5EB.png\" width=\"16\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/GnVgm.png\" width=\"16\"></p>\n\n<p><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/RAISi.png\" width=\"256\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/RAISi.png\" width=\"128\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/RAISi.png\" width=\"64\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/RAISi.png\" width=\"32\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/RAISi.png\" width=\"16\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/GnVgm.png\" width=\"16\"></p>\n\n<p><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ki3yO.png\" width=\"256\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ki3yO.png\" width=\"128\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ki3yO.png\" width=\"64\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ki3yO.png\" width=\"32\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ki3yO.png\" width=\"16\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/GnVgm.png\" width=\"16\"></p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://openclipart.org/download/216861/heartbeatw.svg\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">SVG Link if you would like to edit</a></p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 133, "author": "michaelpri", "author_id": 26, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Plain ECG tracing (V1 + V2)</p>\n\n<p><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/SAGRX.png\" width=\"256\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/SAGRX.png\" width=\"128\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/SAGRX.png\" width=\"64\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/SAGRX.png\" width=\"32\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/SAGRX.png\" width=\"16\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/8XMiq.png\" width=\"16\"> </p>\n\n<p><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/EYeO4.png\" width=\"256\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/EYeO4.png\" width=\"128\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/EYeO4.png\" width=\"64\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/EYeO4.png\" width=\"32\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/EYeO4.png\" width=\"16\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/8XMiq.png\" width=\"16\"> </p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://openclipart.org/download/216865/ecgl.svg\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">SVG Link if you would like to edit</a></p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 134, "author": "michaelpri", "author_id": 26, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Rod of Asclepius</p>\n\n<p><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZSt3z.png\" width=\"256\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZSt3z.png\" width=\"128\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZSt3z.png\" width=\"64\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZSt3z.png\" width=\"32\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZSt3z.png\" width=\"16\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/0A0i9.png\" width=\"16\"></p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://openclipart.org/download/216869/snakelogo.svg\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">SVG Link if you would like to edit</a></p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 137, "author": "michaelpri", "author_id": 26, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>\"He\" for Health</p>\n\n<p><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/kiF8m.png\" width=\"256\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/kiF8m.png\" width=\"128\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/kiF8m.png\" width=\"64\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/kiF8m.png\" width=\"32\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/kiF8m.png\" width=\"16\"></p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://openclipart.org/download/216877/he.svg\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">SVG Link if you want to edit</a></p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 224, "author": "Shimmy Weitzhandler", "author_id": 115, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/115", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I'm not too much of graphic designer, <strong>so I beg you</strong> not to measure the pixels in my image and be able to imagine it in various <strong>color</strong>s (read on).</p>\n\n<p>Anyway, I'd still vote for the cross <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/a/13/115\">suggested by @michaelpri</a>.</p>\n\n<p>The cross should be either red (maybe boxed - as in first-aid box - to distinguish from christianity), dark blue, or light blue, or one of the above in a white background (see <a href=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/hdaKO.jpg\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">this</a>).</p>\n\n<p><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/Pzwnz.png\" width=\"256\"/>\n<img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/Pzwnz.png\" width=\"128\"/>\n<img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/Pzwnz.png\" width=\"64\"/>\n<img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/Pzwnz.png\" width=\"32\"/>\n<img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/Pzwnz.png\" width=\"16\"/></p>\n\n<p>Or just white:<br>\n<img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/UlDGu.png\" width=\"128\"/>\n<img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/UlDGu.png\" width=\"64\"/>\n<img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/UlDGu.png\" width=\"16\"/></p>\n\n<p>Here's an image with a white cross and a red background.</p>\n\n<p><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/Uwc7R.png\" width=\"256\"/>\n<img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/Uwc7R.png\" width=\"128\"/>\n<img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/Uwc7R.png\" width=\"64\"/>\n<img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/Uwc7R.png\" width=\"32\"/>\n<img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/Uwc7R.png\" width=\"16\"/></p>\n\n<p>Here's one with a red cross and white background with a black around the outside.</p>\n\n<p><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/383po.png\" width=\"256\"/>\n<img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/383po.png\" width=\"128\"/>\n<img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/383po.png\" width=\"64\"/>\n<img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/383po.png\" width=\"32\"/>\n<img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/383po.png\" width=\"16\"/></p>\n\n<p>Which gives a hint of (see more <a href=\"http://bit.ly/1st-aid-kit\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">here</a>):</p>\n\n<p><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/wpXSWs.jpg\" alt=\"\">\n<img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/r2kits.jpg\" alt=\"\">\n<img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/TWkKas.jpg\" alt=\"\">\n<img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/58QKNs.jpg\" alt=\"\"></p>\n\n<p>Maybe the red should be a bit lighter.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 263, "author": "Kenshin", "author_id": 83, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/83", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>\"Li\" for Life</p>\n\n<p><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/QvnmI.jpg\" width=\"256\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/QvnmI.jpg\" width=\"128\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/QvnmI.jpg\" width=\"64\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/QvnmI.jpg\" width=\"32\"> <img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/QvnmI.jpg\" width=\"16\"></p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://openclipart.org/download/216877/he.svg\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">SVG Link if you want to edit</a></p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 142, "author": "Susan", "author_id": 165, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/165", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I think it’s not so much an issue of <em>rigor</em> as it is <em>breadth</em>. All of the questions you give as examples seem to me to be fairly clear: «<em>Are there any adverse health effects associated with X?</em>» Such questions are fairly broad and open-ended, and in some instances would probably be inappropriately so. («<em>Is smoking unhealthy?</em>») On the other hand, «<em>Is natural sugar healthier than refined sugar?</em>» is simply asking for information about what aspects of one option might be more or less salubrious than the other. The answerer is left to supply the details based on an understanding of the relevant available data. This is a sensible way to ask a question. </p>\n\n<p>This sort of question is not Skeptics.SE style: «<em>Evaluate this claim.</em>» It is, however, a reasonable Q&amp;A style: «<em>Help me understand this.</em>» </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 144, "author": "Robert Cartaino", "author_id": 29, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/29", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I don't think there generally needs to be a \"requirement.\" It's all about context. If the question is answerable in the <em>context</em> it is asked, you should answer it. </p>\n\n<p>You can usually infer the level of interest and specificity a person needs based on what they are asking. If a layperson wants to know if/why natural sugars are more healthy than refined, there's really no need to harangue them into specifying dyslipidemia, HDL, or general loss of adipose tissue. People asking the broader, vaguer questions are generally laypeople, so it is perfectly acceptable to answer their questions in that context. </p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/138", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/200/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 141, "author": "Shlublu", "author_id": 102, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/102", "pm_score": 5, "selected": true, "text": "<p>To me, 1 and 3 are necessary and sufficient. </p>\n\n<p>I'm not in favor in providing information at all (2) as this would let the OP think that even if it would be better to see a doctor his/her concern can be handled without.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 143, "author": "Zaralynda", "author_id": 62, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/62", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>We've faced this problem with <a href=\"http://pets.stackexchange.com\">Pets.SE</a>. </p>\n\n<p>Examples:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https://pets.stackexchange.com/questions/3149/kitten-very-nervous-and-lack-of-energy\">Kitten very nervous and lack of energy</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"https://pets.stackexchange.com/questions/2096/what-do-i-do-with-a-dog-who-vomits-while-recovering-from-surgery\">What do I do with a do who vomits while recovering from surgery</a> (followed the next day by <a href=\"https://pets.stackexchange.com/questions/2119/my-post-surgery-dog-is-not-eating-is-pooping-and-is-breathing-heavy-how-can-i\">My Post surgery dog is not eating, is pooping, and is breathing heavy. How can I help her?</a>)</li>\n<li><a href=\"https://pets.stackexchange.com/questions/6396/20-yr-old-cat-litterbox-issue\">20 year old cat litter box issue.</a></li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>We've <a href=\"https://pets.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/798/should-medical-emergencies-always-be-off-topic\">discussed if these types of questions should be automatically closed</a>, and (after about 18 months in beta) we've come to the consensus that they should be left open. We can still provide some assistance. </p>\n\n<p>Sometimes the person has talked to their vet, but the vet didn't give them very detailed information or the person wasn't in a frame of mind to remember/absorb the information. One example was <a href=\"https://pets.stackexchange.com/questions/5627/my-cat-ate-a-part-of-a-balloon-what-should-i-do/5628\">My cat ate (part of) a balloon. What should I do?</a>. The pet owner remembered to watch for \"strange behavior\" and we were able to answer with some specific behaviors to look for.</p>\n\n<p>In other cases we try to outline how serious the situation is to convince the person to take their animal to the vet, such as <a href=\"https://pets.stackexchange.com/questions/6245/what-can-i-do-for-my-turtle-that-fell-down-three-floors\">What can I do for my turtle who fell down three floors?</a></p>\n\n<p>We've also given advice on how to talk to veterinarians (what types of questions to ask), such as <a href=\"https://pets.stackexchange.com/questions/7465/tightly-curled-over-tail-and-strange-gait/7466\">Tightly curled over tail and strange gait.</a></p>\n\n<p>This type of stuff is helpful, but I'm not sure if it's the right approach on a site for <em>human</em> health.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/139", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/200/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 147, "author": "michaelpri", "author_id": 26, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I agree that the question should be migrated to <a href=\"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/\">Physical Fitness.SE</a>. It is a health related question and I'm sure it would get good answers here, but I definitely think it is a better fit for Physical Fitness. There is sure to be some overlap between Health and PF, but we do need to define a line of where the overlap stops.</p>\n\n<p>One question that I feel could be on Physical Fitness, but is a good fit here at Health.SE, is this, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/220/can-breaststroke-be-harmful-for-the-back\">Can breaststroke be harmful for the back?</a> This is asking for the effects of an exercise and how it affects your health. The question being discussed here, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/432/why-does-walking-jogging-seem-to-do-so-much-more-for-you-than-only-bicycling\">Why does walking/jogging seem to do so much more for you than only bicycling?</a>, does not really seem to be asking about how an exercise affects your health, but rather if something is better than something else. </p>\n\n<p>I think that the line between Physical Fitness and Health should be when people stop asking about a certain exercise or workout can affect your health (which is on-topic as you stated) and instead ask for comparisons of multiple workouts.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 148, "author": "JorgeArtware", "author_id": 174, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/174", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I upvoted michaelpri's answer because the way he rationalizes seems logical to the point it seems intuitive to agree with him. But on second thought he's basically saying \"if some exercise hurts then it is a health concern if it doesn't then it is fitness\". </p>\n\n<p>But in reality, the scope of the question should be evaluated for the kind of answer the person who asked needs. </p>\n\n<p>So, is @Roombatron5000 interested in the exercise that will make him more fit (stronger, last longer), or <strong>is he interested in the health implications of jogging vs bycicle?</strong> If it is the later, I'd say it's on topic.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/146", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/29/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 151, "author": "anongoodnurse", "author_id": 169, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/169", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "<blockquote>\n <p>For any subject that is sufficiently well researched, you can probably find a study that supports any conclusion. The important part is evaluating the whole body of research. </p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>You're right about this <em>for the most part</em>.</p>\n\n<p>First and foremost, use your down vote if you think the answer is unhelpful.</p>\n\n<p>Rather than placing onerous burdens on the user in the form of more restrictive answering guidelines (no paywalls, no small studies, no animal studies, must represent every viewpoint out there), if you feel the answers are erroneous or misleading, why don't you provide another answer which is better, and let the readers decide for themselves?</p>\n\n<p>Or as an alternative, you can comment on what you think is wrong under the answer and hope that the user is gracious enough to edit their answer (I have done this and been met with an impressive amount of graciousness.) The problem with this is that comment wars can ensue.</p>\n\n<p>Finally (and probably the least helpful response), you can flag the moderator if you think the answer poses a threat to readers. The mod can monitor that particular user's answers for a while.</p>\n\n<p>I feel that it is not only voluntary of users to answer, but an answer benefits the site. Of course we need to safeguard the quality of the answers. Place enough restrictions on them, though, and there will be many fewer answers.</p>\n\n<p>_{This reminds me of a story heard at an Emergency Medicine conference. The push in medicine for a number of years now has been towards evidence based medicine, which sounds fine on the surface of things, but a lot of medicine is based on half a century of practice that has worked. The speaker mentioned that some things don't need to be studied to know what is useful. For example, no one has ever tested the <em>hypothesis</em> that parachutes save lives. He said we needed a rigorous, double blinded study for <em>evidence</em>. It would entail 100 people, 50 of whom were provided with parachutes in backbacks and instructions in their use, and 50 of whom were given backpacks stuffed with newspapers and the same instructions. Then toss them all out of a plane. Only then could we say with certainty that parachutes save lives because it's been <em>studied</em>! (And we could easily identify the placebo effect as well.) My point is, not everything will have the study you want to see. Doctors, at least, have used animal models for centuries.}</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p><strong>Of the 105 Nobel Prizes awarded for Physiology or Medicine, 91 were directly dependent on <a href=\"http://speakingofresearch.com/facts/the-animal-model/\" rel=\"nofollow\">animal research</a>.</strong> Animal research underpinned the very first Nobel Prize to be awarded for Physiology or Medicine to Emil von Behring in 1901 for developing serum therapy against diphtheria, as it did the most recent awarded in 2014 to John O’Keefe, May-Britt Moser and Edvard Moser for studies of the inner GPS of the brain of a rat.</p>\n</blockquote>\n" }, { "answer_id": 152, "author": "Tim", "author_id": 163, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/163", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I have been thinking about this too, and came up with a couple of solutions:<s></p>\n<ol>\n<li><p>Have a whitelist of references</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Ensure 3+ references per answer</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Require the study to be peer reviewed</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Disallow non-study references.</s></p>\n</li>\n</ol>\n<p>As you can see by the strike through, none of these seem to solve the problem for me, which might make you think that we have no solution?</p>\n<p>Not quite.</p>\n<p>I realised that there is no &quot;catch all&quot; statement that is going to fix this, and so we need to use this site the way it is intended. Vote.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Voting is central to our model of providing quality questions and answers; it is how</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Good content rises to the top</li>\n<li>Incorrect content falls to the bottom</li>\n<li>Users who consistently provide useful content accrue reputation and are granted more privileges on the site</li>\n</ul>\n</blockquote>\n<p>That's our solution. All we have to do is downvote anything that we judge isn't high enough quality for us.</p>\n<p>This is going to be a <em>little</em> opinionated - some people will be freer with their downvotes, but the SE model works.</p>\n<p>If you don't think something is good enough, downvote it. If it is good, upvote it. If you can't decide, move on. I often find myself clicking downvote, and then thinking &quot;actually... It's not that bad&quot; and simply not voting.</p>\n<p>One thing. If you downvote, please, <em>please</em>, <strong>please</strong> comment if appropriate - an anonymous downvote hurts the site more that people understand. If the studies aren't good enough, downvote and <em>comment</em> to say so - maybe even give them some sites that may have some suitable studies? Or even edit it yourself - you have the power to.</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/DzZUX.png\" alt=\"enter image description here\" /></p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/150", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/-1/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 154, "author": "Susan", "author_id": 165, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/165", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I have been thinking about this quite a bit since this site launched. Those of us who were trained in the medical profession were inculcated with the idea that patient safety trumps <em>everything</em>. From this perspective, faulty advice lying around the site is simply <strong>not acceptable</strong>. Its potential to cause harm outweighs any considerations about how SE is meant to work, what successful moderation has looked like on other sites, or what anyone else is comfortable with. I share with you these instincts. </p>\n\n<p>On the other hand, the Stack Exchange network has been built around a different moderation approach: </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer. </p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>These guys know what they’re doing. If we start using flags to mediate arguments about right vs. wrong, the debates will be never-ending. And none of us came here looking for a host for our debates.</p>\n\n<p>What is the solution? I think it is to marshal a user base of people who are able to critically evaluate the claims being made and annotate quality based on votes, just like every other SE site. This is going to involve some work. Currently, we just don’t have enough people with the background to make this work. We need to put some thought into how to attract those people. Otherwise, this site is going to be reams of words without any indication of what is high quality explanation and what is pure nonsense. </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 178, "author": "Fomite", "author_id": 206, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/206", "pm_score": 4, "selected": true, "text": "<p>My primary concern with this is that I think the answer is potentially \"Yes\", but that now puts a tremendous burden on the moderators. Now not only are they moderators in the traditional sense of Stack Exchange moderators (because it's not like those problems are going to go away), but also the \"gatekeepers of rightness\", which puts both an intense amount of responsibility at their feet, and presupposes they <em>can</em> properly evaluate the correctness of answers that the community has failed to properly evaluate.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 179, "author": "JohnP", "author_id": 64, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/64", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Another consideration is when known \"good\" advice becomes bad or disproved. </p>\n\n<p>For example, the recent studies that are starting to show that low sodium diets aren't really all that efficacious for high blood pressure, and may in fact be harmful by going too low in the sodium intake. (In some instances, as pointedly remarked upon). This is intended as a general example, not specific medical advice, as this is a meta post about awareness, not a recommendation in response to a specific question.</p>\n\n<p>Having a responsive, responsible member group as well as moderators that can curate old questions/answers will be a critical factor in site success. I think, however, that by recognizing and discussing these things early, we have a good start on making that a reality. That will also make it easier than going back and trying to untrench set in thought patterns.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/153", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/169/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 156, "author": "michaelpri", "author_id": 26, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>This does seem to be a problem, and we should try to fix it. I was the writer of the eczema answer you mentioned, but I have now deleted it because you are right about this being a problem and I don't want to promote it. </p>\n\n<p><strong>Commenting and downvoting and even flagging as NAA is the best thing to do</strong>, but the list of ideas you came up with could be helpful too. Out of the ideas you gave in your question, I like the 3rd option the best.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Ask for a one line definition of the illness: \"Eczema is a condition characterized by dry and irritable skin, with problems arising because of its ability to be an effective barrier against allergens and pathogens.\"</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>This does help raise the quality of questions, and it will also direct the answerers' attention to this, so they will know that the answer is related to the actual question being asked, if they didn't read the question carefully enough. We could possibly even <strong>bold</strong> or <em>italicize</em> this definition. </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 188, "author": "rumtscho", "author_id": 193, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/193", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "<p>As a moderator on another site, I can tell you how we handle this: We do delete the answer if it does not fit the question, and gently remind the user to pay attention to what he's answering. If we also think that the answer is of good quality, we suggest to the user that he can make a new self-answered question out of it and copy-paste the well researched answer there. </p>\n\n<p>I would say that it works for us. Self answered questions are rare, but they happen, and it is maybe one more good opportunity to get more of them. Also, the regular users learn from having their answer removed in that way, and stop posting irrelevant answers. As for the drive-by one time users, they rarely post very good answers worth saving. In the rare case where this happens, we simply leave a very verbose explanation of how the site works and that we will still welcome participation from them in the future. </p>\n\n<p>Also note that once a site has gathered a decent mass of questions, most of this newly posted advice will be towards a common, popular topic, and will already have been asked and answered elsewhere. An example which happened recently on cooking: a question on \"why do egg yolks break\" being answered with advice on when to wash eggs before storage. In this case, the washing question already has the points mentioned in the new, misplaced answer, and there is no need to save the content. </p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/155", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/169/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 156, "author": "michaelpri", "author_id": 26, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>This does seem to be a problem, and we should try to fix it. I was the writer of the eczema answer you mentioned, but I have now deleted it because you are right about this being a problem and I don't want to promote it. </p>\n\n<p><strong>Commenting and downvoting and even flagging as NAA is the best thing to do</strong>, but the list of ideas you came up with could be helpful too. Out of the ideas you gave in your question, I like the 3rd option the best.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Ask for a one line definition of the illness: \"Eczema is a condition characterized by dry and irritable skin, with problems arising because of its ability to be an effective barrier against allergens and pathogens.\"</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>This does help raise the quality of questions, and it will also direct the answerers' attention to this, so they will know that the answer is related to the actual question being asked, if they didn't read the question carefully enough. We could possibly even <strong>bold</strong> or <em>italicize</em> this definition. </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 188, "author": "rumtscho", "author_id": 193, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/193", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "<p>As a moderator on another site, I can tell you how we handle this: We do delete the answer if it does not fit the question, and gently remind the user to pay attention to what he's answering. If we also think that the answer is of good quality, we suggest to the user that he can make a new self-answered question out of it and copy-paste the well researched answer there. </p>\n\n<p>I would say that it works for us. Self answered questions are rare, but they happen, and it is maybe one more good opportunity to get more of them. Also, the regular users learn from having their answer removed in that way, and stop posting irrelevant answers. As for the drive-by one time users, they rarely post very good answers worth saving. In the rare case where this happens, we simply leave a very verbose explanation of how the site works and that we will still welcome participation from them in the future. </p>\n\n<p>Also note that once a site has gathered a decent mass of questions, most of this newly posted advice will be towards a common, popular topic, and will already have been asked and answered elsewhere. An example which happened recently on cooking: a question on \"why do egg yolks break\" being answered with advice on when to wash eggs before storage. In this case, the washing question already has the points mentioned in the new, misplaced answer, and there is no need to save the content. </p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/157", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/161/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 161, "author": "michaelpri", "author_id": 26, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<h1><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/users/169/anongoodnurse\">anongoodnurse</a></h1>\n\n<h2><a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/169/anongoodnurse\">Meta</a></h2>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://stackexchange.com/users/3674367\">\nhttp://stackexchange.com/users/flair/3674367.png?theme=dark</a></p>\n\n<p>Anongoodnurse (aka medica) has been extremely helpful in advancing this site. In my encounters with her, she has been very friendly and polite and she has also helped me improve the quality of my questions and answers. </p>\n\n<p>She is also a Parenting.SE moderator, so she is familiar with moderating. </p>\n\n<p>I believe that she is also a medical professional (correct me if I'm wrong), which I think is something we need in a mod for this site.</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p><strong>Thank you for the nomination; I'm sorry to decline.</strong></p>\n\n<p>I appreciate the consideration and support I've received, especially for being so new. I believe the other nominees have better demonstrated their commitment to the site and have a fuller appreciation of its vision. </p>\n\n<p>I will be happy to continue to contribute on the site and here in meta, and look forward to its success!</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 162, "author": "Shlublu", "author_id": 102, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/102", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "<h1><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/users/165/susan\">Susan</a></h1>\n\n<h2><a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/165/susan\">Meta</a></h2>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://stackexchange.com/users/4052760\">\nhttp://stackexchange.com/users/flair/4052760.png?theme=dark\n</a></p>\n\n<p>Always calm, professional, knowledgeable, with a non-biased state of mind, Susan does help us a lot. Being able to write such answers^{<a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/120/why-do-doctors-prescribe-steroid-tablets-even-though-they-know-the-side-effects/307#307\">1</a>,<a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/11/are-calcium-supplements-harmful-even-if-you-stay-short-of-the-maximum-dose/424#424\">2</a>} and comments^{<a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/11/are-calcium-supplements-harmful-even-if-you-stay-short-of-the-maximum-dose/424#comment722_424\">3</a>} leads me to think she would do a great moderator.</p>\n\n<p>Looks like she is also a medical professional or biologist (same here, please correct me if I'm wrong).</p>\n\n<p>Please accept, Susan :)</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>I accept this nomination. If asked, it would be my pleasure to serve as a moderator here.</p>\n\n<p>I live in UTC -5/-4, but if my SE activity patterns were reviewed I suspect you would find no circadian pattern whatsoever. I reserve the right to be here at any time of day or night. :-)</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 163, "author": "JohnP", "author_id": 64, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/64", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<h1><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/users/64/JohnP\">JohnP</a></h1>\n\n<h2><a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/64/JohnP\">Meta</a></h2>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://stackexchange.com/users/1511762\">\nhttp://stackexchange.com/users/flair/1511762.png?theme=dark</a></p>\n\n<p>I have been active every day since the private beta launch with some activity pre launch in Area 51. I have participated in several private betas that have made it to public beta status (Woodworking, Beer among others) and I am active on several other public beta sites as well. I believe I have a good base of both knowledge and activity on the regular and the meta sites. While I have not been a SE moderator yet, I have served as a moderator on several different forums in the past few years.</p>\n\n<p>I would be honored to be one of the pro-tem moderators, and I believe that I could be a contributing member of a good moderation team.</p>\n\n<p>Edited: I have been asked for history. My first degree is in exercise kinesiology (Study of human movement), which includes several classes on maturation milestones and aging differences, injury treatment and lifestyle/nutrition management. I worked as an ambulance medic for 2 years and in an Air Force ER for 3 years active and 4 years reserve as a primary medic and Air Transportable Hospital response member. I have continued over the years to be active in coaching in several sports, and have continued refresher education in various health subjects.</p>\n\n<p>I am available generally from 9am EST until 12am EST, as I work in an area where I am on the computer most of the day.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 164, "author": "JohnP", "author_id": 64, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/64", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<h1><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/users/26/michaelpri\">michaelpri</a></h1>\n\n<h2><a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26/michaelpri\">Meta</a></h2>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://stackexchange.com/users/4642421\">\nhttp://stackexchange.com/users/flair/4642421.png?theme=dark</a></p>\n\n<p>I think michaelpri would also make a good moderator. He has experience, as he is a moderator pro-tem on lifehacks, and has been active (In fact, is the leading reputation person on the site) in asking and answering/refining questions, meta and in chat. He has been a primary driver of the private beta since launch.</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<h2>I gladly accept this nomination</h2>\n\n<p>I have been very interested in this site from its first day in beta. I don't have any background in health, but I come from a family of nurses, so it has always been a topic in my household. I am currently a <a href=\"https://lifehacks.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators\">Moderator Pro Tempore on Lifehacks.SE</a>, so I am familiar with moderating on SE. Lifehacks isn't the most busy site, so I would still have time to be a moderator here. I am young (14), but this has never been a problem during my SE experience. I live near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, so I go by Eastern Standard Time.</p>\n\n<p>Activity on Health*:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><p>Not on: 4:00 UTC - 11:00 UTC/12:00 a.m. EST - 7:00 a.m. EST </p></li>\n<li><p>On sporadically: 12:00 UTC - 8:00 UTC/8:00 a.m. EST - 4:00 p.m. EST</p></li>\n<li><p>Have SE on an open tab: 8:00 UTC - 4:00 UTC/4:00 p.m. EST - 12:00 a.m. EST </p></li>\n</ul>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>^{*These times may vary}</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 165, "author": "michaelpri", "author_id": 26, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "<h1><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/users/163/tim\">Tim</a></h1>\n<h2><a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/163/tim\">Meta</a></h2>\n<p><a href=\"http://stackexchange.com/users/3203697/tim\">http://stackexchange.com/users/flair/3203697.png?theme=dark</a></p>\n<p>From my experience with Tim, he seems like he would make a good moderator. He is knowledgeable about Health, even though he isn't a professional and whenever I have talked to him, he has been polite and respectful.</p>\n<p>He has also dedicated a lot of time into this site, both on beta and meta. He even <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130/voting-for-a-new-icon\">made a bunch of icons</a> for this site based on people's ideas.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>I accept this nomination but please see the list below.</p>\n<p>I am Tim, I'm 16 and I live in Cambridge, UK, so will be active on the site from 3pm - 9pm UTC (Varies throughout the year due to BST)</p>\n<p>Reasons not to elect me:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>I'm 16 years old (17 in september) and I am a full time student.</li>\n<li>I have 20+ exams in the next 3 months (starting 3 weeks from now) so I am going to have <em>no</em> free time.</li>\n<li>I will then have the summer (~2.5 months) of almost no work.</li>\n<li>After the summer I will be at 6th form (the 2 years before University) and again, I will be very busy.</li>\n</ul>\n" }, { "answer_id": 166, "author": "michaelpri", "author_id": 26, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<h1><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/users/102/shlublu\">Shlublu</a></h1>\n<h2><a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/102/shlublu\">Meta</a></h2>\n<p><a href=\"http://stackexchange.com/users/447369/shlublu\">http://stackexchange.com/users/flair/447369.png?theme=dark</a></p>\n<p>I haven't had much interaction with Shlublu, but he been a helpful, active member on this site, both on beta and meta, where he has posted many high quality answers. Shlublu is also a Certified First Responder in France, so has experience that could really benefit this site.</p>\n<hr />\n<h2>I'm sorry I have to decline this nomination :/</h2>\n<p>I appreciate that very much, both this nomination and the support it receives! <br/>I don't think I would be a good moderator though, as I cannot commit to any kind of availability. Sometimes I'm here and available for a week, sometimes I'm away without notice for a while... this is not steady/constant enough for a mod.</p>\n<p>I'll be happy to keep contributing! As much as I'll be able to, my scope being a bit narrow :)</p>\n<hr />\n" }, { "answer_id": 167, "author": "Joe W", "author_id": 38, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/38", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<h2><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/users/38/joe-w\">Joe W</a></h2>\n\n<h2><a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/38/joe-w\">Meta</a></h2>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://stackexchange.com/users/1239998\">\nhttp://stackexchange.com/users/flair/1239998.png?theme=dark\n</a></p>\n\n<p>I have been visiting the site since the private beta was launched and been checking and helping deal with items in the review queues as they are added. I have been participating in the meta discussions on how the site should handle different issues. And while I don't always agree with what others are suggesting I understand one of the key duties of a moderator is to live up to the standards of the community as a whole even when they might not agree with them.</p>\n\n<p>I am looking forward to watching this site grow as I think it can provide a lot of useful information as the user base grows.</p>\n\n<p>I live in The United States in central time and am generally on in the evenings in that time zone or about 11pm - 4am UTC on weekdays and on off and on from 3pm - 4am UTC on weekends.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 172, "author": "Nate Barbettini", "author_id": 59, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/59", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<h1><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/users/59/nate-barbettini\">Nate Barbettini</a></h1>\n\n<h2><a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/59/nate-barbettini\">Meta</a></h2>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://stackexchange.com/users/3851539\">\nhttp://stackexchange.com/users/flair/3851539.png?theme=dark</a></p>\n\n<p>I have been active on the site since day one of the private beta. I am not a health professional, but I am someone who cares a lot about having accurate, evidence-based information available online. I think that this site could become a great place for that.</p>\n\n<p>I think a key duty of the early moderation team (whoever they may be) will be setting the tone of the site early on. We've already had some good meta discussion about whether alternative medicine is considered off-topic in answers, and what types of references and citations are expected, with plenty of strong opinions all around. I think that the influx of users when the site goes public will push these issues even more to the forefront. A moderation team that understands the needs of Health.SE and can help the community work through these issues will be crucial.</p>\n\n<p>I would love the opportunity to take on the role of a moderator, but I will continue to be actively involved in the site regardless.</p>\n\n<p>I live in the Central US timezone, so my availability can roughly be:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>Sporadic: 7 AM - 5 PM CST (1 AM - 11 AM UTC). (At work during these times)</li>\n<li>Active: 5 PM - 11 PM (11 AM - 5 PM UTC)</li>\n</ul>\n" }, { "answer_id": 216, "author": "Susan", "author_id": 165, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/165", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<h1><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/users/206/fomite\">Fomite</a></h1>\n\n<h2><a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/206/fomite\">Meta</a></h2>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://stackexchange.com/users/465049\">\nhttp://stackexchange.com/users/flair/465049.png?theme=dark\n</a></p>\n\n<p>Although he has only been around for about a week, Fomite has already contributed many informative answers reflecting obvious expertise in the area. He has also been active on meta, pointing out potential difficulties with the site and making insightful observations about how we should approach them. He has an extensive history of valuable posts on other SE sites including Academia, Cross Validated, and Biology, indicating a solid understanding of the SE platform and how our communities work.</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p><strong>I am happy to accept this nomination</strong></p>\n\n<p>I started off a little late in the private beta (this site launching corresponded rather perfectly with some travel), but I've been trying to contribute decent quality answers where I can, and thinking about how the community can be structured to draw both casual users and experts.</p>\n\n<p>I'm technically on Eastern Standard Time, but my schedule is pretty wide ranging - I'm up at all hours of the night, and tend to have StackExchange sites sitting in the background while I work, checking in occasionally.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/160", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/163/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 176, "author": "JohnP", "author_id": 64, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/64", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I would think that it <em>might</em>, and I emphasize <em>might</em> be on topic in very limited circumstances.</p>\n\n<p>However, claims, ACA, eligibility, things like that would be not only highly specific to an individual, but would also vary company to company and contract to contract.</p>\n\n<p>I can see someone making a case that resolving their insurance question/claim/dispute is key to maintaining their health, but that's about as far as I could stretch it. I just don't think that it's an answerable question for 99% of the cases.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 177, "author": "Robert Cartaino", "author_id": 29, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/29", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I would say <strong>no</strong>; insurance issues are a completely different area of expertise. Even highly-trained medical professionals employ insurance specialists to handle claims issues and anything to do with eligibility, etc. It is not really part of a site \"for medical specialists, students, dietitians, and anyone with health-related questions.\" </p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/175", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/244/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 181, "author": "JohnP", "author_id": 64, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/64", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p><a href=\"http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/22853/pro-tem-mod-qa\">http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/22853/pro-tem-mod-qa</a></p>\n\n<p>I created a room for this. If you have questions you would like to ask of the mods, go ahead and ask them there. It would be nice if all moderator candidates could visit the room, so that the @ ping will work for your name.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 182, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I am not sure about other sites, but on math, for mod elections, we have a thread where we compile questions for users who are running. The top X amount of questions (could 3,4,5, etc) are moved to an official thread where each candidate starts an answer that address all the questions. This way all answers per candidate are in one post. With chat, answers will be mixed up and not in any order making it hard to follow. See <a href=\"https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/18751/2014-moderator-election-qa-questionnaire\">this</a> post for what it looks like. </p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/180", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/169/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 189, "author": "rumtscho", "author_id": 193, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/193", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>No, it is not. It has never been considered a reliable source in other quality-concerned communities, and universities frequently ban it as a source even for undergraduate papers. </p>\n\n<p>Wikipedia is the result of anonymous non-specialists interpreting and filtering primary studies. In some cases they are even subject to malicious misrepresentation of facts and hoaxes. It contains many errors, intentional or unintentional. Some of them are quite subtle and, especially when embedded in true facts, very hard to notice. And especially on controversial topics, which are abundant in health, they can't enforce the neutrality they strive for. </p>\n\n<p>Of course, all of these points are also valid for this community - it will use the same method (interpretation of primary sources by nonspecialists) and suffer from the same problems. But while it is hard enough to deal with it, it becomes much larger if we are using unreliable secondary sources instead of peer-reviewed (or otherwise reputable) primary sources. </p>\n\n<p>See also <a href=\"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/19083/are-there-instances-where-citing-wikipedia-is-allowed\">Are there instances where citing Wikipedia is allowed?</a> for a description of how it is handled among academics, who are generally the group most concerned with the reliability of sources. </p>\n\n<p><strong>update</strong> Also see an example of a <a href=\"http://www.pharmacyteaching.com/article/S1877-1297%2811%2900008-6/abstract?cc=y\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">study</a> which assessed the accuracy of medical information on Wikipedia, in this case information on drugs: </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Of the 20 categories of information assessed, a mean of twelve (range, 8–16) categories were present in each of the 20 Wikipedia articles. Categories most frequently absent were drug interactions and medication use in breastfeeding. No article contained all categories of information. Information on contraindications and precautions, drug absorption, and adverse drug events was most frequently found to be inaccurate; descriptions of off-label indications, contraindications and precautions, drug interactions, adverse drug events, and dosing were most frequently incomplete. Referencing was poor across all articles, with seven of the 20 articles not supported by any references. </p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>I have seen similar claims on the quality of Wikipedia from other sources - it is inaccurate and poorly referenced. So, it cannot be considered reliable. </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 192, "author": "Susan", "author_id": 165, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/165", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I’ve been using Wikipedia here and there for links to terminology that not everybody is likely to be familiar with. For instance, I was writing <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/a/535/165\">this answer</a> just now and trying to avoid using Wikipedia in light of this Q&amp;A. There are decent peer-reviewed references already supporting the substance of the answer, but I wanted to link to something for «Haldane Effect» and «Hypoxic Respiratory Drive» just in case anybody didn’t understand them, wanted to read a bit more, and was too lazy to use Google themselves. I managed to find a non-wiki link for «Haldane Effect», but I’m not sure it’s any better than Wikipedia. I did link to Wikipedia for «Hypoxic Respiratory Drive».</p>\n\n<p>Given that we allow links to all sorts of non-peer-reviewed stuff on here (see <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/a/126/165\">my rant here</a> for more on how I don’t think these are optimal as the primary references backing an answer), Wikipedia often provides a concise (quasi-peer-reviewed) summary of background concepts or terminology. I don’t have a problem using it like that. I agree with the other answer that it is not appropriate to use Wikipedia as a reference for the main claims in the answer.*</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>_{\n*<a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/a/189/165\">The other answer</a> mentions how Wikipedia is not appropriate in an academic setting. I agree. The sorts of things I’m using it for would not require a reference in an academic setting. I just think it’s friendly to use them when the audience is more diverse like this.\n}</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 329, "author": "Ooker", "author_id": 99, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/99", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<h1>Does it make you feel reliable when you read it?</h1>\n<p>I think this is the key point to trust a source on the internet. In my thinking, there is no different between Wikipedia and Stack Exchange. They both have:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Content provided by users, edited by users, discussed by users</li>\n<li>Users are anonymous, but can leave a note about them if they want</li>\n<li>Strict moderation</li>\n</ul>\n<p>So, if you trust the content here in Health, I think it is logical to trust Wikipedia. Do you trust the content here in Health?</p>\n<p>Now, this may make you angry that the only thing we can believe is our conscience, and that's subjective. But that's how the way it goes. How can you know that a paper is wrong without checking it by yourself?</p>\n<p>My simple trick is flipping a coin. <strong>While the coin is in the air</strong>, the answer will pump in your mind.</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/SbD8L.png\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/SbD8L.png\" alt=\"enter image description here\" /></a></p>\n<p>But I think there is another easy way to do. If you are about to introduce <strong>terminology</strong> only (say <a href=\"https://www.google.com/search?q=Haldane+Effect&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Haldane effect</a>), then Wikipedia is advocate (and quickly since it's will be the first result when you google). But if you are about to give a <strong>statement</strong> (e.g. Haldane effect is only appear in women) (this one I make so I don't have any backup), then you may want to cite another source than Wikipedia.</p>\n<p>That's also how you treat TED talks, even when you see the creators. <a href=\"https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/26277/14341\">Are TED presentations academically credible?</a></p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 448, "author": "Count Iblis", "author_id": 856, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/856", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>All Wikipedia articles on medical topics are subject to <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)\" rel=\"nofollow\">this policy</a>, which basically says that everything must be based on third party secondary review articles, primary research articles are not allowed. This policy is rigorously enforced for all topics that fall within conventional medicine.</p>\n\n<p>Problems with strictly enforcing this policy mainly happens on pages about alternative medicine. This happens because Wikipedia can have a page on any topic provided it is sufficiently notable. So, if some witch doctor cure is popular in Africa, one cannot say that just because it is a medical topic one cannot have a page about that topic. Any claimed health benefits must be presented as mere claims, so in the end it is not all that unreliable, but it won't necessarily be based on secondary review articles or any medical articles for that matter.</p>\n\n<p>So, Wikipedia's articles on conventional medical topics are usually very reliable as judged by rigorous scientific standards, the articles on alternative medicine are often less reliable, as they tend to be written from a less rigorous scientific point of view.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/184", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/114/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 186, "author": "Shlublu", "author_id": 102, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/102", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<blockquote>\n <p>\"Can taking beta-blockers turn your skin purple?\"</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>I like this example. </p>\n\n<p>I think an answer saying \"to my knowledge this was never proven and this doesn't appear on the list of known side-effects of beta-blockers (source)\" would be totally acceptable... until someone comes with a better answer should a specific study exist.</p>\n\n<p>The rationale behind my thought is that it would be hard to close such questions as they might be completely valid and useful to others. And I see no problem in them remaining unanswered for a while, and why not featured.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 187, "author": "Susan", "author_id": 165, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/165", "pm_score": 4, "selected": true, "text": "<p>I suspect that you have some mechanistic idea about how the immune responses to influenza and Dengue differ to preclude the notion of exposure to one strain of influenza causing a more severe reaction to another, <em>a la</em> Dengue. You could first provide some basic overview about the immunology of the influenza vaccination, citing a review article or a textbook or whatever. Then explain the idea behind how dengue does what it does (review, textbook, whatever). I imagine it wouldn’t be all that difficult to show that these are not logically compatible. No direct empirical data and no ‘proof’ (if there ever was such a thing in medicine) but we could all learn something about how somebody who understands these bugs thinks about the idea.</p>\n\n<p>If I could think of a good purple skin mechanism, I’d volunteer to try it for beta blockers.* I can’t, but you do seem to have a good starting place for thinking about your question with the Dengue contrast.</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>_{\n*Actually, there my approach would probably be different. Since there are <em>gadzillions</em> of subjects who have been given beta blockers in a controlled fashion, I would find a couple big cardiology trials comparing beta blocker to placebo and point out that \"purple skin\" is not in their table of reported adverse events. Obviously, the study wasn't powered for that outcome, and it's by no means 'proof.' Still, if these are the most relevant available data, I think it's reasonable to present them. It seems to me that for most questions there are either theoretical (as with the virus question) or tangentially relevant (as with beta blockers) data that can be brought to bear in a way that is both reasonable and edifying despite being imperfect.\n}</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 371, "author": "Iron Pillow", "author_id": 332, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/332", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Pubmed is your friend. </p>\n\n<p>It finds two papers for the search: beta blocker AND purple. The papers don't seem relevant from their titles, but changing \"purple\" to a broader term that references skin pigmentation would yield even more hits that would need to be read. </p>\n\n<p>Always be humble in the face of nature. Any negative answer should refer to relevant Pubmed searches.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/185", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/206/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 198, "author": "JohnP", "author_id": 64, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/64", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>There is an article I found on the NYU website <a href=\"http://guides.nyu.edu/fairuse\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">in the library section</a>. It suggests that fair use is acceptable when doing research and teaching. There are a couple items that I think would allow use of an excerpted image for an answer here:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>&quot;Transformative&quot; uses are also favored as fair uses. A use is considered to be transformative when it</p>\n<p>results in the creation of an entirely new work (as opposed to an adaptation of an existing work, which is merely derivative and not transformative);</p>\n<p>or uses the original work for a new and different purpose.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>You are creating an interpretation or original answer and referencing the image in support. That makes it a new work, which I think would qualify.</p>\n<p>Also:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>In general, published works and factual, non-fiction works are more likely to qualify for fair use.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>As well as:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Weighing in favor of fair use:</p>\n</blockquote>\n<pre><code>Posting a 30-second clip of a film online for students to critique\nDistributing a chapter of a text for class discussion\n</code></pre>\n<p>So, unless the image is the key critical piece of the paper and without that picture the entire paper would crumble, I think that linking the image would be acceptable fair use.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 199, "author": "Shog9", "author_id": 41, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/41", "pm_score": 4, "selected": true, "text": "<p>Legally, you can't <strong>know</strong> if something is fair use unless it goes to court. Not always even then.</p>\n\n<p>Different sites / publications have different rules for what they consider appropriate, usually based on some combination of length and ratio to original text. These exist both to provide <em>some</em> protection against claims of copyright infringement and also claims of plagiarism. </p>\n\n<p>Realistically, the legality of quoting isn't something you should worry about. Being thorough about your citations (at minimum, noting the author and publication you're pulling from) goes a long way toward making the original authors feel respected, and that's what we should strive for <em>first</em>. </p>\n\n<p>Beyond that, try to avoid making your entire answer a \"ransom letter\" patchwork of quotes from various sources, even if you are citing them properly. If you can't understand the sources you're quoting well enough to explain them in your own words, relate them to the question you're answering, and address any ambiguities that others might point out in comments, you're not really helping. </p>\n\n<p>Oh... And don't <em>ever</em> fail to indicate when you're quoting. I've seen folks try to be clever and past together bits and pieces of various articles, linking to the sources but not indicating which portions were lifted - that's not only disrespectful to the original authors, it disrespects your readers <em>here</em>. It's plagiarism plain and simple, and we must not tolerate it.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/197", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/165/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 204, "author": "Shlublu", "author_id": 102, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/102", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>To me the (meta) question is not so much whether this health question is broader than any other one. The question is \"can it receive an answer that is interesting, useful to others, not opinion-based and reasonably long\". </p>\n\n<p>In this specific case, the answer to \"What are the benefits of eating food\" would consist in demontrating how/why eating is important for health. This would not be a page but a complete treatise. I'm not sure a simpler answer such as \"if you don't eat you'll eventually die from starvation (with steps in the middle that are X, Y and Z)\" would be acceptable, because it would not explain the benefits of eating but the consequences of not eating.</p>\n\n<p>I think the second paragraph of <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/a/11/102\">this answer</a> from <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/29/robert-cartaino\">Robert Cartaino</a> to another meta question applies here:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Sometimes you can take an interesting subject and make its contents sooo generic, that you take all the intriguing, applied questions on the subject, and turn it into a bland retreatment of articles you might find on Wikipedia. </p>\n</blockquote>\n" }, { "answer_id": 205, "author": "JohnP", "author_id": 64, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/64", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "<p>After reviewing the three linked, here are the actions I took:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>Cell phones - Voted to close as being too broad, and flagged for moderator. Especially with the last sentence adding questions and scope.</li>\n<li>Circumcision - Not broad. It's a single medical procedure that has been studied, and can be answered easily.</li>\n<li>Alcohol - More broad than #2, but again, has a definable list of effects and has scientific evidence backing it up. This one is borderline too broad, but I didn't take any action on it.</li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>For me, one of the key points in my first consideration is from the help section:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>I can imagine several books coming from \"What are the benefits of eating food\".</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 209, "author": "Robert Cartaino", "author_id": 29, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/29", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>If it would take an entire book to answer a question in any <em>meaningful</em> way, it isn't likely \"right sized\" for a site like this. In this case, it would take an entire <em>shelf</em> of books to even <em>begin</em> to cover all the ways this question could be answered. That is the very definition of \"too broad.\" </p>\n\n<p>Someone might be able to cherry-pick some generalizations that <em>appear</em> to answer this question, but who knows? It's not really clear what the problem statement is, or even what the right <em>context</em> is to begin answering this question. </p>\n\n<p>This type of Q&amp;A is better-suited to solving very <em>specific</em> problems rather than laying out vague lesson-seeking topics like \"how does my body work?\" or \"How do I know if I'm healthy?\" This question does not start with a much stronger premise than that. This question was <em>\"too broad.\"</em></p>\n\n<p>That is why this question was closed.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 234, "author": "kenorb", "author_id": 114, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/114", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "<p>This can be compared to the following two examples:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/q/608/114\">Which waste residues accumulate into the liver? How to get rid of them?</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/q/633/114\">Can toxins accumulate in the liver?</a></li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>The first one is too broad, because as <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/users/165/susan\">Susan</a> pointed out, it is:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>more about specifics of what substances and what to do, so the scope also needs to be narrower </p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>The second:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>isn’t too broad because he’s asking just about whether it happens. </p>\n</blockquote>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/203", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/163/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 207, "author": "Shlublu", "author_id": 102, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/102", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Such questions should be on-topic in my opinion. The same issue exists on other SE sites, Stack Overflow or Server Fault being excellent examples. On these two: </p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>some of the questions can be understood and answered by a non-professional-but-interested public, </li>\n<li>some can only be understood but not answered by such a public</li>\n<li>and finally, some are tricky questions for professional geeks.</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>This sounds natural to me. On top of that, accepting professional-to-professional questions would be an excellent way to attract professionals on this site: on top of answering questions - so giving time to others -, they would also be in a position to ask their own questions and to have them answered - so finding their own interest.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 208, "author": "Robert Cartaino", "author_id": 29, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/29", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "<p>That's awesome: Professionals asking professionals about the questions <em>they</em> have in this field.</p>\n<p><em><strong>Yes, on topic!</strong></em></p>\n<p>It would be a bit backward-thinking to exclude the questions that <em>professionals</em> would actually have for a site like this… <em>because they're not &quot;general&quot; enough?</em></p>\n<p>Think about that.</p>\n<p>You would be excluding the interests of the the very people who will (hopefully) drive the <strong>best</strong> content of this site. You would be excluding the people who will make this site &quot;work&quot;.</p>\n<h3>Embrace these specialized, long-tailed questions</h3>\n<p>Many sites have the problem that they strive to become <em>soooo</em> generic and applicable to all, that they settle into a Wikipedia-like scope where only uninspired questions that anyone could ask are allowed. And they’ve all been asked 100 times before on every other site on that subject. No thank you.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>low applicability to … the general public</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>To throw in a bit of historical context, this sounds an awful lot like folks looking for things that are <em>too localized.</em> &quot;Too localized&quot; once describe questions involving <em>&quot;…very tiny geographic regions or vanishingly small periods of time&quot;,</em> and it's an out-modded artifact we got rid of a long time ago, <em>good riddance.</em> Too localized is no longer a valid reason to flag or close a post.</p>\n<p>We should not close questions because &quot;it is too narrow and focused.&quot;</p>\n<p>If the professionals want to use this site for their specialized interests in this field, you've gotta love it. Failing to embrace these questions with <em>both</em> arms would be a big mistake.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><em>&quot;To attract experts, you need a site where people are asking very interesting and challenging questions, not the basic questions found on every other Q&amp;A site.</em></p>\n<p><em><strong>Remember, the pro sites WILL attract the enthusiasts, but not the other way around!&quot;</strong></em></p>\n<p><em>— <a href=\"http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/07/area-51-asking-the-first-questions/\"><strong>Blog Post, Your New Site: Asking the First Questions</strong></a></em></p>\n</blockquote>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/206", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/64/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 212, "author": "Shog9", "author_id": 41, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/41", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "<p>This is a problem I've been observing in quite a number of answers... Someone finds an answer to the question on an existing website somewhere, and either just links to it or links and quotes the relevant portion of the article. </p>\n\n<p>Why is this a problem?</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li><p><strong>It looks bad.</strong> On a well-established site, the occasional answer that consists primarily of a reference to an answer elsewhere doesn't do much harm... But this early on, it's a big red flag that we're lacking sufficient expertise to do more than use Google. Indeed, Google itself will tend to de-rank pages that do this extensively, as they add nothing to the originals and are a source of frustration for searchers.</p></li>\n<li><p><strong>It offers little hope if the answer <em>doesn't</em> fully answer the question.</strong> If something is lacking in the article you quote, do you possess the knowledge to address it yourself? Perhaps you do - but there's little indication of that in the answer. </p></li>\n<li><p><strong>It leaves <em>all</em> the leg work of verification to the reader.</strong> That Wikipedia article has 119 references. Your answer has <em>one</em> - the Wikipedia article; it even strips the reference links from the original text. If I want to dig into the conclusions offered there, I have to first click through to the original article, find the text being quoted, bring up the references cited <em>there</em>, and then repeat the process for each. </p></li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>Nothing wrong with using Wikipedia as a starting point, but don't <em>stop</em> there - dig into the references yourself, ensure they're reliable, try to get as close as you can to original sources and reference <em>those</em> in your answer... Then use what you've learned to answer the question itself.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 219, "author": "kenorb", "author_id": 114, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/114", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "<p>You should re-edit your question by adding your own interpretation, introduction text and expand your answer further more. Once you think it's ready for the publication, flag the post for the moderation so he they can undelete your answer or address further issues.</p>\n\n<p>See also: <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/help/referencing\">How to reference material written by others?</a></p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/211", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/43/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 221, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>If you don't want post an answer, you don't have to. If you want to comment that is perfectly fine as well. If your comment is truly answer worthy, your peers, health.SE users, can @ping you to request you make your comment an answer. If you decline, well that is what the community wiki can be used for. Another user can turn your comments into a community wiki answer allowing anyone to expand on your answer/comment since ownership is revoked. If a community mod complains, oh well there is no rule against you taken the approach you did.</p>\n\n<p>I can think of math where this is a problem though but it is done in an entirely different manner. However, in that case, users are commenting answers when the post is already closed as a way to circumvent not being able to provide an answer. Since your aren't trying to circumvent closure to provide an answer, I see no foul play.</p>\n\n<p>Moreover, an official anongoodnurse answer means potential rep points. If you are willing to forgo that to add general knowledge, I would think it would be worse to prevent the spread of knowledge since it wasn't in an answer box.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 222, "author": "JohnP", "author_id": 64, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/64", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>That should fall upon the shoulders of the moderation team, as well as a community that actively flags comments that are chatty, serve no purpose or are warring.</p>\n<p>Here are some example comments from a very active, very respected mod on an established site:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Ahem. Take this to [site] Chat or edit this comments in, please. @xxxxxxx if you find yourself needing more than one comment, you need zero comments.</p>\n<p>xxxxxx, comments are not for extended discussion. You have needed multiple multiple-comment responses on this answer, which suggests a poorly formed question. Comments are for clarification requests. If you feel like chatting with someone, invite them.</p>\n<p>Please do not argue in comments. Take it to [site] Chat if you must.</p>\n<p>Don't answer in comments.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>So if we have an active community flagging disruptive comments, and active moderators policing, then it should be a very limited problem.</p>\n<p>As far as the answering if &quot;you know it will be closed&quot;, if you know it will or should be put on hold, then you should treat it as such. If you think it's worthy of an answer, then go ahead and answer. If a question gets put on hold, any answers already there remain.</p>\n<p>If you think it will be downvoted but deserves an answer, go ahead and answer. They even have a badge for that. :)</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 232, "author": "Robert Cartaino", "author_id": 29, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/29", "pm_score": 4, "selected": true, "text": "<blockquote>\n <p>If I don't want to answer a question (for whatever reason) that I know I'm going to vote to close [&hellip;] what the harm is in commenting on an answer that I strongly suspect is going to be closed?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>The problem is that posting answers in the comments section embraces the <strong><em>worst</em></strong> of both worlds &mdash; on the one hand, you (the community) decided the question doesn't belong and are closing it from further participation. On the other hand, you are then posting a comment/answer below the question which is un-vetted, immutable, and isn't subject to any of the sorting or checks that are designed to avoid just that.</p>\n\n<p>I understand that you are just trying to help &mdash; I actually have little doubt that the information you provided was correct &mdash; but if you believe you should be able to post an answer without all that pesky community vetting stuff, then you also have to believe that everyone <em>else</em> on this site should be able to do the same. People imitate what they see, and when folks find this site through search, they're never going to understand the nuanced difference between a properly-curated answer and one that was \"just a comment.\" </p>\n\n<p>Comments do not have the features of a proper \"answer.\" Maybe the Moderators feel qualified to judge whether answers posted in this manner are all correct, valuable, and complete enough to stand as <strong><em>the</em></strong> answer to that post &mdash; but I think it's more intellectually honest to say this is <strong><em>not</em></strong> the way we curate content and we should <em>not</em> allow these types of unsorted answers at all&hellip; especially on a site that allows free and open posting to a site about <em>health.</em></p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/220", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/169/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 236, "author": "anongoodnurse", "author_id": 169, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/169", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Personally, speaking as both a medical professional and a user, I don't find these kinds of questions to be of good quality. They show no research effort; they are of passing interest, but little more. I know this doesn't sound very generous, but if an OP can't do <em>some</em> research first, are internet points worth the effort required in answering?</p>\n\n<p>I agree with your points except <em>maybe</em> #4.</p>\n\n<p>As a community, we need to set the standard for questions (and answers). What we decide depends on what we want to be, and what kind of users we want to attract. This kind of question will not (in my opinion of limited worth) attract health care professionals. </p>\n\n<p>On the other hand, if someone asked (e.g.):</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>If a 25yo, moderately athletic man's asthma is not well controlled with albuterol (beta-agonist) and ipratropium bromide (anticholinergic) at maximal doses - he still has bronchospasm with exercise and sometimes has to take meds for attacks in the middle of the night - what is the next step? We've removed all the carpets, have had his mattress hermetically sealed, have an air filterer running full time, and banished the cat to the garage. What other drugs or life style changes can we try? What are the pros and cons of each?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>I'd be happy to do basically all the same things the original question asked - what drugs are used to treat asthma - but I'd feel I might actually help the person who asked the second question.</p>\n\n<p>I don't mind long answers (and your example, to be answered well, would need to be a very long answer). But it's not very rewarding to do all that work for rep. Call me a grinch. But I'd rather you called me with a problem I might actually be able to help you with.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 240, "author": "Zaralynda", "author_id": 62, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/62", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I do not think we should be retyping information that's available on commonly known medical summary sites like WebMD, MayoClinic, your country's health site, etc. If we cannot add any relevant information beyond what's available on these popular sites then we aren't adding anything to the scope of knowledge available on the internet. </p>\n\n<p>I believe this is similar in intent to <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/211/what-to-do-when-a-question-is-precisely-answered-by-a-wikipedia-page-or-section\">What to do when a question is precisely answered by a Wikipedia page?</a></p>\n\n<p>If the way that we need to stop that from happening is by limiting questions, I'm on board with that.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/233", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/165/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 238, "author": "Shlublu", "author_id": 102, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/102", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "<p>To me <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/eating\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;eating&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">eating</a> and <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/food\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;food&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">food</a> should be regrouped under <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/nutrition\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;nutrition&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">nutrition</a>. </p>\n\n<p>The question <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/224/why-am-i-advised-not-to-eat-immediately-before-exercise\">Why am I advised not to eat immediately before exercise?</a> is not so much about <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/food\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;food&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">food</a>, finally, but about sport or exercise. So maybe any tag related to food is just not so relevant here. And should it be, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/nutrition\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;nutrition&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">nutrition</a> is acceptable, even if not perfectly appropriate.</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/diet\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;diet&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">diet</a> is a bit more complicated. It is a subset of <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/nutrition\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;nutrition&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">nutrition</a> that is interesting on its own. As technically we cannot define a hierarchy, I think <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/diet\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;diet&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">diet</a> should be kept separate but always used in conjunction with <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/nutrition\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;nutrition&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">nutrition</a>¹. Simply because some users may want to search for <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/diet\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;diet&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">diet</a> questions only while those who are searching for <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/nutrition\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;nutrition&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">nutrition</a> are also interested in <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/diet\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;diet&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">diet</a> things.</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>^{1- Users should be advised of this best practice. A <a href=\"http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/21273678#21273678\">chat discussion with Susan</a> (thanks!) tends to show we have simple ways to do that. We can for example include a statement to the wiki description of the \"diet\" tag} </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 242, "author": "JohnP", "author_id": 64, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/64", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Eating and food I think can go away.</p>\n\n<p>I would keep both nutrition and diet, as there is a difference between them.</p>\n\n<p>Diet is the sum of all food that a person (or other living organism) takes in to sustain life.</p>\n\n<p>Nutrition is the process by which the body breaks down and uses the nutrients obtained from the diet.</p>\n\n<p>They are very similar and do go somewhat hand in hand, but I think there is enough of a difference that both tags would be used.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/237", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/165/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 247, "author": "JohnP", "author_id": 64, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/64", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>As that question is written, yes, I would consider it off topic. It's simply asking for a percentage number. Knowing the number would have absolutely no impact on health, either personally or in a global sense.</p>\n\n<p>However, I would consider it on topic, if it was about the implications of the relative scarcity of medical equipment in relation to the amount donated, but it would need to be worded fairly carefully to avoid being too broad or opinion based.</p>\n\n<p>Summary: If it is simply looking for a number, no, not on topic. If it is about the implications of that low percentage in global health, possibly on topic depending on how it is worded.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 252, "author": "anongoodnurse", "author_id": 169, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/169", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<blockquote>\n<p>Are questions about hospital equipments off-topic?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Not necessarily. We have questions about xrays and MRIs. If the question is a health question that happens to involve hospital equipment, it's on topic. For example:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Will an IV line with a very large bubble in it hurt me or cause any problems? I read that an air embolism (or a gas embolism) has the potential to hurt or even kill people.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Venous air embolism is a predominantly iatrogenic complication that occurs when atmospheric gas is introduced into the systemic venous system.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>I sometimes see small bubbles in an IV line, but how much is too much air?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>I think this is a health question <em>involving</em> hospital equipment.</p>\n<p>Asking what percent of donated hospital equipment actually works isn't a health related question. A problem, certainly. But a health problem for the reader of this statistic? I don't think it is, not as it is framed.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/246", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/43/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 250, "author": "JohnP", "author_id": 64, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/64", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>As shown in the comments, the original poster has been asked to clarify what devices they are referring to. Until that happens, we don't know what to address.</p>\n\n<p>In addition, you have this statement:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>I'm not sure exactly to which electronic devices you're referring to, but I'm sure some of them can be used with glaucoma as well.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>It is <em>possible</em> that some of the devices could be used with glaucoma, but you don't <em>know</em> that, and you don't know if they would actually help or not.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 251, "author": "Shog9", "author_id": 41, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/41", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I'm curious about your process for writing these...</p>\n\n<p>Many of your answers appear to share the same characteristics: </p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>Start with a general-purpose explanation of <em>the question's topic</em>, paraphrased from another site.</li>\n<li>Follow with a list of references and excerpts that may be useful in answering the question</li>\n<li>Close with some related commentary </li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>The most distinctive aspect of these appears to be that, unlike most other answerers, <em>you often forget to actually answer the question</em>, or obscure your answer within tangential commentary. This tends to make your answers appear as though someone had posted the appendix to a longer article but forgotten to include the article itself...</p>\n\n<p>I'm not sure if this is a personal style, if it is a side-effect of how you research these questions, or a side-effect of the nature of <em>the questions you're answering</em>; this particular question was quite unclear, as you yourself observed in both answer and comment. If it is indeed the latter, I would strongly encourage you to avoid answering such questions until they can be edited for clarity and focus, perhaps even editing them yourself before starting an answer.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/249", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/114/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 256, "author": "Gilles 'SO- stop being evil'", "author_id": 58, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/58", "pm_score": 4, "selected": true, "text": "<p>You should read <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/193/the-road-to-public-beta-time-to-clean-up-qa-on-health-stack-exchange\">this meta announcement</a>. I'm not familiar with Health.SE, but even I could easily find that this site <em>does</em> have a nascent policy to have a high quality requirement on answers, and delete answers that do not meet these requirements:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<ul>\n<li><p>Flag answers that do not attempt to answer the question. Interesting tangents may be interesting, but an answer needs to make its point, back it up, and wrap it up.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Flag answers that speculate but don't back it up. Any good answer here should be able to draw on a wealth of available sources; failure to do so casts doubt on its validity and creates more work for anyone reading.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Flag answers that consist entirely of links / quotes / or references without bringing any knowledge or expertise to relate them to the question. It's awesome to draw heavily from (trusted) sources, but be sure to pull out the key relevant parts and tie them back to the specific question at hand.</p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n</blockquote>\n<p>I haven't seen your answers, but make sure that they meet all the points, in particular that they <strong>address the specific question</strong> and not just the question's theme. “General-purpose explanations” are fine when they serve as a background for a to-the-point answer, but they are not in themselves what this site is about. As <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/249/glaucoma-answer-removed-because-of-a-shotgun-approach/251#251\">Shog9 reminded you in the very post you quote</a>, do not “forget to actually answer the question”.</p>\n<p>Here's a writing tip: first, answer the question succintly. Then (before posting of course), examine what you've written.</p>\n<ol>\n<li>Does it actually answer the specific question? If you can imagine other questions that what you've written would fit, your post doesn't answer the question, it's just explanatory background.</li>\n<li>Review the question. Did you take all of the symptoms into account? An answer that doesn't account for all symptoms is probably off the mark.</li>\n<li>Are there concepts in your answer that the asker may be unfamiliar with? If so, expand your explanation of these concepts. You'll often need to introduce these concepts before the part that you've already written, but make sure that they don't drown the answer. Using clearly-titled sections can help.</li>\n<li>What claims are you making in this post? Provide at least one <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/150/how-can-we-prevent-users-from-cherry-picking-references\">reliable reference</a> for each claim.</li>\n</ol>\n" }, { "answer_id": 257, "author": "Shog9", "author_id": 41, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/41", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I referenced your \"personal style\" for two reasons:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>this isn't an isolated problem, and I want you to reexamine how you're answering questions here; fixing individual problems with individual posts amounts to treating symptoms while ignoring the root cause.</li>\n<li>by leaving open the question of <em>why</em> you're answering this way, I hoped to allow you to <a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_(sociological_concept)\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">save face</a>.</li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>But, you misinterpreted that. So allow me to be blunt:</p>\n\n<p>Your \"style\" has caused you to repeatedly fail to actually <strong>address the question being asked.</strong> You write badly-assembled lists of facts, out-of-context quotes and erroneous conclusions that are <em>at best</em> tangential to the questions you're answering and at worst are actively misleading by purporting to be answers while making no effort whatsoever to actually <strong>solve the asker's stated problem.</strong> </p>\n\n<p>It's irresponsible and it has to stop. You can change how you answer questions here, or you can continue seeing them deleted.</p>\n\n<p>I recommend that you carefully read and follow <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/255/should-my-answers-get-removed-because-of-my-personal-style/256#256\">Gilles' excellent advice</a>.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/255", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/114/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 260, "author": "Joe W", "author_id": 38, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/38", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>It needs to be remembered that votes on Meta are different then they are on the main site. Up votes mean that you agree with the post, so in the case of the post you linked it would mean the voter agrees with what was posted. Down votes mean that the voter disagrees with the post so in the case of what you posted it means they disagree with the poster. It is something that does get confusing for a lot of users because the tool tip is the same for the voting buttons on both sites.</p>\n\n<p>To break it down a little more in the case of the question you are asking about it is most likely a sign that the voters disagree with the poster and are supporting the action to remove the posts in question. As for his complaints he does have one fair point that it is better to have a reason posted when deleting a post. But his other complaint about posts not being un-deleted when the original problem is fixed but other problems remain is in my opinion wrong. </p>\n\n<p>In the end when it comes to issues of discussions of moderation of a users posts on Meta it should be remembered that not everyone is going to agree with the users complaints about the moderation and that down votes will happen.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 261, "author": "Tim", "author_id": 163, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/163", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>What makes the difference between when it should be a downvote and when it should be an upvote on a meta question asking for help on a specific question?</p>\n<h3>Downvote:</h3>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Hey my post is getting downvoted! I have no idea how this site is supposed to work, didn't bother to read any of the documentation on how the site works, and ignored all the comments under my question explaining what I could do to fix it.</p>\n<p>So I came to Meta and repeated all of the mistakes I made on the main site!</p>\n<p>How can I improve my question without reading any of the site's documentation, related posts, or comments under my questions?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<h3>Upvote:</h3>\n<p>I'm new here and I just asked my first question. Unfortunately it has received a few downvotes, but no one has left a comment explaining what I can do to improve it.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>I've read the help center, taken the tour, and looked through previous Meta questions on the topic, but I'm still at a loss. Can someone point me in the right direction?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>It more or less boils down to, &quot;Is this user making an honest effort to improve, or is this user continuing the same pattern here on Meta?&quot;</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 271, "author": "kenorb", "author_id": 114, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/114", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I think the up/down votes are just saying either people agree to my main question or not.</p>\n\n<p>The title said: Should my answers get removed, because of my personal style?</p>\n\n<p>So it sounds like by down-voting it, the community agrees that the answers should be removed for the personal style on the site.</p>\n\n<p>Yes, I think this actually discourages person from posting any further posts on the site.</p>\n\n<p>So the options are: that person should follow other users either by removing his account (which few people already did as I've received the correction votes) or stop posting the answers and leave it for other people who wants to spent most of the time on their answers where they have 50/50 chances that it'd be removed for some reason, because someone instead of down-voting and comment on the post suggesting the change directly to the author, its going further and reports it for the moderation instead, so it's taken more seriously than the other answers.</p>\n\n<p>What we can do about it? Use votes and comments as everybody does it (to suggest the changes directly to the author, so it can be improved further more) and report the posts for moderation only when its spam, or irrelevant/inappropriate for the site (not because you feel wrong about one link or sentence, or it has few minor issues).</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/259", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/163/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 265, "author": "Susan", "author_id": 165, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/165", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Personalized medical advice close reason: </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Questions requesting personal medical advice are off topic here. Nobody here can properly address your health issues. Such questions should be taken to your personal physician who can examine you and access your full medical records. For more information, please see <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/a/258/165\">this meta post</a>.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Examples:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/q/748/165\">https://health.stackexchange.com/q/748/165</a> </li>\n<li><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/q/761/165\">Bolt of electric shock on upper right chest</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/q/439/165\">My left Achilles tendon hurts when walking with a second hand pair of shoes</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/q/776/165\">“Swollen” just because of the cold?</a> (only visible to 2k+) </li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>Update: This reason is now active. </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 266, "author": "Susan", "author_id": 165, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/165", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>General reference question close reason:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>General reference questions are off topic here. This question asks for a generic description of a common disease or requests a generic list of treatment options. Such information is already available on a variety of easily located internet resources. Questions here should be focused and should reflect basic research that you have already done. For more information, see <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/a/236/165\">this meta post</a>.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Example: This was inspired by the question:</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/q/641/165\">Medications for asthma</a></p>\n\n<p>It is meant to encompass anything asking, “What treatments are available for X disease?\" </p>\n\n<p>On further reflection, to the extent that they are inappropriate (common diseases, many available treatments, gads of relevant research), most of these can probably be closed as “too broad.”</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 267, "author": "JohnP", "author_id": 64, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/64", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Medications close reason:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Questions regarding dosing or medication interactions are off topic here. These questions require discussions with your pharmacist and primary care provider.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Example: I am taking Xanax and Inderal - How much aspirin should I take for my headache?</p>\n\n<p>Example: I am on Xanax and ran out. Can I take my daughters Valium instead?</p>\n\n<p>Example: I am on medication X, but it makes me nauseous. Can I just take it less times a day so I don't feel as sick?</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 268, "author": "JohnP", "author_id": 64, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/64", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Belongs on Fitness.SE close reason:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Questions about your personal fitness regimen (Including dietary questions related to your workouts) are off topic here. There is already a <a href=\"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/\">Stack Exchange Fitness site</a> that exists for these types of questions.</p>\n</blockquote>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/264", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/165/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 265, "author": "Susan", "author_id": 165, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/165", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Personalized medical advice close reason: </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Questions requesting personal medical advice are off topic here. Nobody here can properly address your health issues. Such questions should be taken to your personal physician who can examine you and access your full medical records. For more information, please see <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/a/258/165\">this meta post</a>.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Examples:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/q/748/165\">https://health.stackexchange.com/q/748/165</a> </li>\n<li><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/q/761/165\">Bolt of electric shock on upper right chest</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/q/439/165\">My left Achilles tendon hurts when walking with a second hand pair of shoes</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/q/776/165\">“Swollen” just because of the cold?</a> (only visible to 2k+) </li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>Update: This reason is now active. </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 266, "author": "Susan", "author_id": 165, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/165", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>General reference question close reason:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>General reference questions are off topic here. This question asks for a generic description of a common disease or requests a generic list of treatment options. Such information is already available on a variety of easily located internet resources. Questions here should be focused and should reflect basic research that you have already done. For more information, see <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/a/236/165\">this meta post</a>.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Example: This was inspired by the question:</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/q/641/165\">Medications for asthma</a></p>\n\n<p>It is meant to encompass anything asking, “What treatments are available for X disease?\" </p>\n\n<p>On further reflection, to the extent that they are inappropriate (common diseases, many available treatments, gads of relevant research), most of these can probably be closed as “too broad.”</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 267, "author": "JohnP", "author_id": 64, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/64", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Medications close reason:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Questions regarding dosing or medication interactions are off topic here. These questions require discussions with your pharmacist and primary care provider.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Example: I am taking Xanax and Inderal - How much aspirin should I take for my headache?</p>\n\n<p>Example: I am on Xanax and ran out. Can I take my daughters Valium instead?</p>\n\n<p>Example: I am on medication X, but it makes me nauseous. Can I just take it less times a day so I don't feel as sick?</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 268, "author": "JohnP", "author_id": 64, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/64", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Belongs on Fitness.SE close reason:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Questions about your personal fitness regimen (Including dietary questions related to your workouts) are off topic here. There is already a <a href=\"https://fitness.stackexchange.com/\">Stack Exchange Fitness site</a> that exists for these types of questions.</p>\n</blockquote>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/272", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/114/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 279, "author": "michaelpri", "author_id": 26, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I don't think Sexuality is a dupe of Health, though there may some overlap. Most of the top questions on the proposal would not be on-topic here. For example \"How do I know what size condoms I need to buy?\" and \"I reach orgasm too soon during intercourse or foreplay. How can I delay it?\"</p>\n\n<p>Some of the questions will have overlap, such as \"How much sex is too much? When does it become unhealthy (physically or mentally)?\" and \"Are there health risks to switching between anal and vaginal sex without a condom, given that both partners have been tested recently for STDs?\" This won't be a problem though, as this happens with many SE sites, including here already.</p>\n\n<p>So, don't close as a dupe. There is overlap, but not enough that a successful proposal should be shut down.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 281, "author": "JohnP", "author_id": 64, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/64", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I am in agreement that there will be some overlap, and there will be questions that can live comfortably on both sites.</p>\n\n<p>However, there is a vast arena of sexuality that is not really related to personal or community health, and would be closed as off topic here. I think that there is enough information available that it would make a very viable proposal, and I think it should be allowed to stand on its own.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/275", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/15/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 277, "author": "Attilio", "author_id": 120, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/120", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>\"vitamins\" and \"micronutrients\" should be two different tags.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 278, "author": "Attilio", "author_id": 120, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/120", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>\"Vitamins\" should redirect to \"micronutrients\" instead of the current situation where \"micronutrients\" redirects to \"vitamins\".</p>\n\n<p>NOTE: I've read comments and I think it's good thing not having too many tags. This becomes my favourite solution. I can't upvote my own answers. Please consider this is my favourite option, so +1 :)</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 280, "author": "anongoodnurse", "author_id": 169, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/169", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I wrote the <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/vitamins\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;vitamins&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">vitamins</a> tag. At the time was thinking \"vitamins\" is a subset of the set \"micronutrients.\" I also think \"trace elements\" (meaning Zinc, Manganese, Boron, Copper, Molybdenum, and Nickel, needed in very small amounts but toxic in larger amounts) is a subset of \"micronutrients\". </p>\n\n<p>\"Minerals\" (in my mind - and I may be out of synch here) are needed in larger quantities (Sodium, Calcium, Potassium, Magnesium, Phosphorous, Chlorine, and Sulphur) and are not a subset of the \"micronutrients\". </p>\n\n<p>That makes sense to me. As for having two tags, can't someone pick \"micronutrients\" then specify which? There is something I am missing bout tags.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/276", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/120/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 294, "author": "Wipqozn", "author_id": 203, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/203", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "<p>You should never post an answer unless you're 100% confident it's accurate nor should you rely on sources you don't trust. <strong><em>Never</em></strong> post an answer just for the sake of posting an answer. Frankly, I'd argue that if you don't know about the subject material to determine if the sources your referencing are correct that <em>you shouldn't be posting answers on this site at all.</em></p>\n\n<p>Health.SE isn't like other SE sites, where bad advice could lead to someone losing a video game or breaking a server (which would be pretty horrible, actually), giving poor advice on Health could <em>lead to people experiencing health issues, like death.</em> </p>\n\n<p>Seriously, this site is an accident waiting to happen, but we should take all the steps we can to at least prevent that accident from happening for as long as possible, and part of doing that is not posting answers if you're not qualified to determine their accuracy. </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 298, "author": "anongoodnurse", "author_id": 169, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/169", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>One can only do so much! Your willingness to ask about your answers or your sources already puts you ahead in this area.</p>\n\n<p>I personally have a hard time using any source wherein I've seen a falsehood touted as truth. Having said that, if that source has a good explanation I believe is supported independently, it seems fine to use the explanation; still, the source may not be quite credible.</p>\n\n<p>There is a learning curve associated with every new subject. When I started on EL&amp;U, I knew almost nothing about the English language, though I am a native speaker. In time, one picks up the good sources from good answers, or from <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/112/what-are-reliable-sources\">meta posts</a>.</p>\n\n<p>Asking for other users to add sources is also a good option (imo). I am usually more than happy to help with a decent reference (if I can find one, and I agree with you.)</p>\n\n<p>I hope others with more wisdom will post their opinions.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/293", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/193/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 296, "author": "JohnP", "author_id": 64, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/64", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I was the one that migrated it. You have to choose it being an off topic question for it to be eligible for migration.</p>\n\n<p>While it is within the scope for this site, I felt that it would get better attention and answers on the Fitness SE since it was about increasing your fitness to combat sedentary lifestyle elements. Yes, the final question was \"which is healthier\", but the entire focus of the question was on the exercise elements.</p>\n\n<p>We have known all along that there would be some crossover elements with fitness and biology, where there would be questions that could be on either site. There have been some fitness and nutrition question on the Fitness SE that have been migrated here as well.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 297, "author": "anongoodnurse", "author_id": 169, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/169", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>You ask several questions.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>In my experience here, there has been a lot of negativity; down votes, not happy about this or that. To me it feels like the community is trying to set such high standards and narrow scope that it is strangling it's self.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>You can change that by asking good questions, posting good answers, leaving comments on how questions can be improved, upvoting, etc. It's as much your community as it is for anyone else.</p>\n\n<p>You've asked 11 questions, posted 2 answers, and received 46 up votes (as well as some down votes). You have given only 11 up votes. If that's a reflection of your opinion of the quality of the questions here, then ask better ones. But try to be on topic.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>It might be a bit early in the launch to be discouraging participation (IMHO). </p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>It's never too early to encourage good questions and answers, and to define the scope of the site. That is done by everyone as well. You have a reopen vote. Feel free to use it! If the community agrees with you, a question will be reopened.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>What is the goal of this proposal and how do you expect to reach it? Do you want to be greatest site on the internet for all thing related to Health? Or do you want to be the place where a few answer to a few questions can be found.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>The question has been asked on meta before. Hopefully, the users who ask and answer on this site know that issues are much more complex than those presented by way of a false dichotomy (a logical fallacy which involves presenting two opposing views in such a way that they seem to be the only possibilities.) No one here wants a <em>meh</em> site. On the other hand, in order to have a good site, a <em>lot</em> of decisions, a <em>lot</em> of good questions, and a <em>lot</em> of good answers (among other things) will be required.</p>\n\n<p>To be honest, your post seems to be more of a negative emotional reaction to a legitimate migration than a discussion of the problems new sites face. If you have valid suggestions for discussion, this is the right place to post them. </p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/295", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/15/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 307, "author": "Tim", "author_id": 163, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/163", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/3WoMy.png\" alt=\"enter image description here\"></p>\n\n<p>© Tim 2015. Licensed <a href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">CC by SA 3.0</a>.</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://web-dvm.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Syringe.jpg\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Original image that design is based on</a> (not included in design).</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/yGBwd.png\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">[Bigger image (2113 x 2400)]<a href=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/yGBwd.png\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">4</a></a></p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://openclipart.org/detail/230251/advert-for-health-se-syringe-new-font\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">SVG (with non editable text, because of font)</a></p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 308, "author": "Tim", "author_id": 163, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/163", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ace2W.png\" alt=\"enter image description here\"></p>\n\n<p>© Tim 2015. Licensed <a href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">CC by SA 3.0</a>.</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://www.just-health.com.au/assets/marketing/1.jpg\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Original image that design is based on</a> (not included in design).</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/Em7p5.png\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Bigger image (2200 x 2500)</a></p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://openclipart.org/detail/219102\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">SVG (with non editable text, because of font)</a>.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 309, "author": "Tim", "author_id": 163, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/163", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/Mw5f1.png\" alt=\"enter image description here\"></p>\n\n<p>© Tim 2015. Licensed <a href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">CC by SA 3.0</a>.</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://assets.dnainfo.com/generated/photo/2013/08/cigarette-1377699012.png/larger.jpg\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Original image that design is based on</a> (not included in design).</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/kILIJ.png\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Bigger image (2200 x 2500)</a></p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://openclipart.org/detail/219106/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">SVG (with non editable text, because of font)</a>.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 313, "author": "Tim", "author_id": 163, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/163", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/U29vw.png\" alt=\"enter image description here\"></p>\n\n<p>© Tim 2015. Licensed <a href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">CC by SA 3.0</a>.</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--IG0FVGbp--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/qebdkecladyjwi0fpqju.jpg\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Original image that design is based on</a> (not included in design).</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/mZEuu.png\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Bigger image (2200 x 2500)</a></p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://openclipart.org/detail/219176/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">SVG (with non editable text, because of font)</a>.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 315, "author": "Tim", "author_id": 163, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/163", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p><a href=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/uB0zi.png\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/uB0zi.png\" alt=\"\"></a></p>\n\n<p>© Tim 2015. Licensed <a href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">CC by SA 3.0</a>.</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://cdn.sstatic.net/gaming/img/404.png\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Original image that design is based on</a> (not included in design).</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/LqjYY.png\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Bigger image (2200 x 2500)</a></p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://openclipart.org/detail/230252\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">SVG (with non editable text, because of font)</a>.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 341, "author": "Ooker", "author_id": 99, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/99", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/B0mml.png\" alt=\"image description\"></p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 342, "author": "Ooker", "author_id": 99, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/99", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/oCH8h.png\" alt=\"\"></p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/306", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 311, "author": "rumtscho", "author_id": 193, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/193", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>My experience as a moderator on Cooking has shown me that simpler closing rules are better for the community, even if simplification means that one or two not-that-bad questions have to be closed. The Stack Exchange format is already weird for non-programmers, and they are very upset when a closing rule is treated with much leeway. </p>\n\n<p>I see how a small bump on a finger can be a fairly minor problem, and a physician can feel confident that it is in no way dangerous, so even if she makes a wrong guess, the person won't be harmed. From that point of view, it seems possible to amend a future \"no personal advice\" reason to actually mean \"unless [authorative people] feel there is no risk to giving it\". </p>\n\n<p>This will be indeed a nice thing for the person who asked the question here. But years later, there will be users coming in with all kind of grave symptoms, requesting that we diagnose them. And when we close the question, they will retort with \"but look at that upvoted blue bump question, it is a diagnosis\". And if we say \"this was an exception, but there will be no exception for you\", we appear to be jerks, closing or leaving open questions for our own inscrutable or even evil reasons. This perception is hard to combat even when the rules are strict; but our position gets much harder to defend when the rules are sometimes reinterpreted because a moderator, or a high rep user, or somebody else decided that this one question does not need to abide by the rules. </p>\n\n<p>Even if we can make a small exception from an otherwise closable category (e.g. say that we accept questions on skin conditions when the user provides a picture), I'd be against it. We have such exceptions on Cooking, and over time, they seem to create more trouble than they are worth, leading to endless frustration for users who insist that their question should have been covered by the exception too. </p>\n\n<p>I can fully understand the wish to judge questions individually and leave some of them open when they are not going to cause trouble, even if they nominally fall in a closable category. And I know that an experienced moderator can generally predict the trouble potential of a question pretty accurately. But this strongly diminishes the perceived fairness in the community, and perceived fairness is a very important factor. Its absence can destabilize a community or at least lead to the loss of potentially valuable members. I feel that keeping the perceived fairness high (and keeping the learnability of the community's rules high too, as a side effect) outweighs the benefits of keeping a few edge cases open. </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 312, "author": "anongoodnurse", "author_id": 169, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/169", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I am glad you asked this question. (Obviously, since I'm the one who asked for clarification from the OP.)</p>\n\n<p>I admit this goes somewhat against personal advice - well, maybe more than somewhat, and I've invited the other moderators to close; the decision was to leave it up to the community, so I hope you vote to close if you feel that it should be closed. I will <em>not</em> be offended in any way. As a moderator, I want the community to define it's boundaries, on the main site and here - as you've done - in Meta.</p>\n\n<p>I think your answer does an excellent job of pointing out the \"cons\" of answering this question. But, it kind of uses the slippery slope argument, \"if, then\". If we answer this one, then everyone will want their questions answered. To me, one difference is <em>not every question can be answered equally</em>.</p>\n\n<p>George Will said</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>All politics takes place on a slippery slope. The most important four words in politics are <strong>up to a point</strong>.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>That is, in essence, my argument - we can do some good to individuals <em>up to a point</em>. </p>\n\n<p>\"I'm light headed and short of breath, and my heart is racing. Is this anxiety?\" Yes, it can be. It can also be supraventricular tachycardia, anemia (which of the hundreds of causes?), hypovolemia, atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure, a pulmonary embolism, hyperthyroidism, or the OP may just have run up four flights of stairs (among other things). We can't tell. We <em>need</em> to take a history, do a physical, get some tests. </p>\n\n<p>\"I've had a strange pain on the left side of my face for three days, and there's a lump in front of my left ear that hurts when I poke it. What is wrong with me?\" Again, here we need to take a history and do a physical. We can't answer that.</p>\n\n<p>Dermatology - especially to follow 'moles' - is the only specialty to my knowledge that has been shown to be amenable to iPhone-picture diagnosis.¹ Also, how does the question differ from <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/647/\">this question</a>, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/457/\">this question</a>, or <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/334/\">this one</a>?</p>\n\n<p>So sometimes we <em>can</em> answer. </p>\n\n<p>The question is, do we want to?</p>\n\n<p>Shog9 <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/193/the-road-to-public-beta-time-to-clean-up-qa-on-health-stack-exchange\">stated</a></p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>When you see questions that are attracting <strong>dangerous answers</strong> because they're asking for <strong>personal medical advice for serious health issues</strong>, close them as off-topic and leave a comment urging the author to see a doctor. (Note: it's not necessary to worry every time a question starts with, \"I have...\"; look for dangerous answers as the red flag.)</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>I want what's best for the site, so I'm malleable. On the other hand, I see this and want to help this person, because, unlike the generic \"You should see your doctor for personal questions\" which he will probably blow off (since he's done so for at least a decade), I want to write, \"what you have is a xxx, and I would strongly advise you to see a dermatologist (for zzz reason).\"</p>\n\n<p>So, please, vote to close this if you feel that I'm on the wrong track.</p>\n\n<p>_{<a href=\"http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/838963\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Patient-Driven Teledermoscopy for Atypical Nevi Successful</a>}</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/310", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/193/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 321, "author": "Susan", "author_id": 165, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/165", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I am on board with all of the thoughts offered by michaelpri in the question here. One variation of this idea is to have a somewhat shorter ‘site usage guideline’* for broadcasting diffusely complemented by a longer explanation in the FAQ. The shorter version is intended to be something that everyone asking questions would be forced to see, and perhaps it could be linked to the FAQ explanation. </p>\n\n<p>My proposal for the shorter version:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Health.SE is for educational purposes only and is not intended as a substitute for individualized diagnosis and treatment by a qualified healthcare provider.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>_{\n*I prefer to avoid the term <em>disclaimer</em> because it implies that the primary purpose of this is to eschew responsibility. In fact, it is meant to educate users on appropriate usage of the site. What we call it matters not-at-all for the implementation of this part since no title is required. It might be of interest for naming the FAQ section, however. \n}</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 477, "author": "samthebrand", "author_id": 2090, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/2090", "pm_score": 5, "selected": true, "text": "<p>The company recently had the opportunity to sit down with a real life lawyer to poke his brains on a few legal questions lingering across the network. Proper guidance on the Law and Health sites came up.</p>\n\n<p><strong>Good news:</strong> The sidebar disclaimer you devised is excellent -- it goes above and beyond what most user generated content companies do. </p>\n\n<p>But as you probably know, once you stir the nest the lawyers start buzzing. It's their job to be extra safe, and so they provided us with a modified sidebar disclaimer, plus a General Disclaimer that we'll be adding to the Help Center in the next few days. This Help Center article will be linked from the sidebar disclaimer.</p>\n\n<p>The new disclaimer:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Health Stack Exchange is for <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/help/disclaimer\">educational purposes only</a> and is not intended as a substitute for individualized diagnosis and treatment by a qualified healthcare provider. Communications on Health Stack Exchange are not privileged communications and do not create a doctor-patient relationship.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>The new Help Center article, which serves as a General Disclaimer:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>The information, advice, links and/or any other materials (“Content”) made available through Health Stack Exchange (the “Site”) are for informational purposes only and are not a substitute for professional medial advice, diagnosis, treatment or consultation. You should contact a qualified licensed medial provider to obtain advice with respect to any important medical issue or problem. Do not disregard or delay in obtaining professional advice based on any Content from the Site. Content may not be complete, correct, or up to date, and some Content may be obtained or provided without proper citation or review. Content made available through the Site does not represent endorsements or recommendations by Stack Exchange or other users. Use of and access to the Site or any Content on the Site, or any of the e-mail, website, social media or other like links contained within the Site, do not create an doctor-patient relationship between those posing or responding to inquiries, or any other users, even if licensed individuals in the corresponding fields are involved in such use. Further, these are not privileged communication, and no right to privacy exists. Any opinions expressed are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of Stack Exchange, or other users. All users of the Site relinquish any or all claims against Stack Exchange, the party providing the Content, and any other users that may arise from reliance on any information obtained from the Site. Reliance on any information appearing on the Site is solely at your own risk.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>I wanted to let you know about these changes before they go live. Let us know if you have any questions or concerns.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 1062, "author": "Franck Dernoncourt", "author_id": 43, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/43", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>FYI here is the disclaimer that <a href=\"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskDocs/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">https://www.reddit.com/r/AskDocs/</a> use (showed to the OP whenever they ask a question):</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Thank you for your submission. <strong>Please note that a response does not constitute a doctor-patient relationship.</strong> This subreddit is for informal second opinions and casual information. The mod team does their best to remove bad information, but we do not catch all of it. Always visit a doctor in real life if you have any concerns about your health. Never use this subreddit as your first and final source of information regarding your question. By posting, you are agreeing to our <a href=\"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskDocs/wiki/terms_of_use\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Terms of Use</a> and understand that all information is taken at your own risk.</p>\n \n <p><em>I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please <a href=\"/message/compose/?to=/r/AskDocs\">contact the moderators of this subreddit</a> if you have any questions or concerns.</em></p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>They have another disclaimer on their side bar:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>This subreddit is not a replacement for a doctor. This subreddit is here for informal second opinions, and minor problems that you wouldn't go to the doctor for anyway.</p>\n \n <p>!LEGAL DISCLAIMER!</p>\n \n <p>Our Terms Of Use</p>\n \n <p>The statements of anonymous people on the internet is not a substitute for medical care, if your condition is worsening please go to your primary care provider, If you are having an emergency please go to the nearest hospital or call your location's emergency number (911) in the USA, (999) in Britain, (112) in most of the European union, (000) in Australia, and (111) in New Zealand.*</p>\n \n <p>Even though some members of this subreddit are medical professionals, you are taking their advice AT YOUR OWN RISK.</p>\n</blockquote>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/319", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 323, "author": "michaelpri", "author_id": 26, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I'm Michael and I'm a moderator pro tempore here on Health SE and also on Lifehacks SE.</p>\n<p>I live in Pennsylvania, in the suburbs of Philadelphia. I'm currently 14 years old and I will be going into high school this coming fall. I don't have any job (well, I do walk my neighbor's dog :P), but I do have many aspirations. I am extremely interested in math and science, especially anything computer-related. I love computer programming (though I'm not that good at it), but I hope to develop my skills over the next few years. I also love to play sports, mainly baseball, football, and wrestling.</p>\n<p>After high school, I plan on going to college, hopefully at a prestigious school, and study computer science. After that, I want to go into the STEM field as a software engineer at a tech company. After being on this site, I have thought of the possibility of going to medical school.</p>\n<h2>Why am I here on Health SE?</h2>\n<p>I found this site while it was pretty late in the commitment stage. I didn't really think I'd be able to participate as I had very limited knowledge of health, but I <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/2/what-are-these-lines-in-teeth/14#14\">answered my first question</a> and thought it was very interesting. So I answered more and more and more. I've gained a lot of knowledge since I started here, and I hope to gain a lot more.</p>\n<p>Another thing that I did on this site was participate in the meta. I had never really helped <em>build</em> a community on here, I've usually been just user on the main site. Helping to build this site was very interesting, as there were many problems that had to be solved.</p>\n<p>I hope this site will be able to graduate someday. A lot of great information has been shared here, and I think that this site has the potential to be one of the best sites Stack Exchange has.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 330, "author": "anongoodnurse", "author_id": 169, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/169", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I'm not a nurse, but sometimes wish I were. I'd like to do more of (some of the) hands-on care of people as well as managing their health, but I'm sure I'm glamorizing nursing! :)</p>\n\n<p>I live in Pennsylvania, but have lived in several states around the country. I love to travel, read, snorkel, cook, spend time in nature (as long as it doesn't involve sleeping on the ground), watch good movies and TV shows, and am enjoying learning about photography. Most of all, I love spending time with my adult children and their spouses. I'm extremely fortunate that at the moment; all my kids live within 30 minutes of home for the first time in more than a decade!</p>\n\n<p>I'm here because I love medicine, and after nearly 38 years of it, I'm no less passionate about helping people; if anything, aging and having gone through the typical (and some less typical) illnesses, I am more determined than I was in my youth to help in whatever way I can. In the past I've volunteered to run free medical clinics for the uninsured, the addicted, and the mentally ill.</p>\n\n<p>All my children are grown and out of the house, and I'm not able to do the more physically demanding hobbies I used to enjoy (like farming!), so I spend some of my free time here, hoping to make a contribution.</p>\n\n<p>Why Stack Exchange? </p>\n\n<p>I love the English language, and stumbled across my first SE site, English Language &amp; Usage, about a year and a half ago and was hooked. I greatly appreciate the model of authoritative answers with sources, and I learned so much about the language I've spoken for most of my life (my first language was French.)</p>\n\n<p>I'm hoping to help build this site into one that reaches and helps a large number of people in a way that only the Internet can.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 331, "author": "Shlublu", "author_id": 102, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/102", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I'm from Paris, France, and I'm a certified first aid man there. As a volunteer: this is not my paid job, this is something I do on my spare time. </p>\n\n<p>We have different certification levels here, so for those who know/are interested, mine is PSE2, which stands for \"Team First Aid level 2\". On top of this I'm also entitled to pilot a rescue boat and to drive an ambulance (but only in this volunteering context, I couldn't do ambulance driver as a paid job. Not for quality reasons but for legal reasons as the cert is not the same).</p>\n\n<p>Basically, what we do consists in:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>watching over sport or cultural events and give first aid to whoever needs. This includes taking victims to the hospital if needed. The typical team size varies from 2 to 50+ depending on the size of the event.</li>\n<li>helping firemen in their duty. No fires for us but illness, injuries, car crashes, etc. We wait at the barracks with our ambulance and we go when the bell rings. Colors are different but we actually act on behalf of the firefighter's brigade in these occasions, </li>\n<li>visiting homeless. If we can't change their situation, we can help maintaining a social link, help finding healthcare, help finding a shelter, etc.</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>And of course, this is why I'm here. Plenty of things to ask, plenty of things to learn, and a few heads-up to give :) I love to speak English on top of that, and I need to practice as much as I can, so Health SE is definitely a place to be :)</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 338, "author": "Poik", "author_id": 157, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/157", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I'm a programmer who is going back to start on my Master's in the fall. I tend to spend far too much time playing video games and board games with my friends. I also do some volunteering for my Alma mater while I'm in the area.</p>\n\n<p>As for why I'm on the site, one of my hobbies is nutrition and cooking. I spend far too much time reading up on nutrition, even if sometimes it seems like it changes on a monthly basis. One of my applications right now is trying to make a version or two of Soylent that I like, and making sure my recipe is as healthy as possible. In fact, all of my questions thus far are to make sure I'm not messing anything up. I'm almost happy with the brownie recipe I developed, but the texture is a little off, and 200 grams of brown sugar isn't healthy, but the rest of it is actually fairly good for you. It will probably pop up in questions here and on the Seasoned Advice stack exchange soon (the texture is a hair off).</p>\n\n<p>As for why I'm on Stack Exchange? I'm a programmer. This group of communities has been the most important wealth of information in all of my internships and jobs, second only to my university.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 339, "author": "JohnP", "author_id": 64, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/64", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I currently work as a programming manager, but my first degree was in exercise kinesiology, and I have been active in sports both as a coach and a competitor for over 45 years (Currently I compete as a 4th degree black belt in Tae Kwon Do). I try to keep up on the current literature and advances in sports science and nutrition as much as possible for someone who doesn't depend on it for a living.</p>\n\n<p>I also worked as an Emergency Medical Technician, including 8 years in the United States Air Force as an ER medic, with responsibilities for primary ambulance detail as well as our deployable Air Transportable Hospital (Think the USAF version of a MASH unit).</p>\n\n<p>I'm here on Health (Currently as a mod pro tempore) because I firmly believe that health is one of the most important assets we have as people, and that there needs to be more sites with quality information for the general public.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/322", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 326, "author": "Shog9", "author_id": 41, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/41", "pm_score": 5, "selected": false, "text": "<p>If I understand you correctly, your argument boils down to this:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>You've been very active in posting answers here.</li>\n<li>You disagree with some of the moderators about how answers should be constructed.</li>\n<li>Therefore, we should replace all of the moderators with people who agree with you.</li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>I don't find this logic particularly compelling. You're currently responsible for roughly 15% of answers on the site; that's impressive, but hardly gives you a majority vote in terms of who moderates here. Furthermore, that's based nearly entirely on your activity <em>before</em> moderators were appointed here - you've been mostly inactive for the past few weeks, while the number of other active users has increased.</p>\n\n<p>And that's the critical metric here: a site like this isn't one person answering questions, or even 5 people answering questions; a healthy site welcomes <em>anyone</em> with the expertise to answer the questions being asked, <strong>even if they only ever post a single answer.</strong> Health is not such a narrow topic that you can expect a small handful of people to provide good answers to a majority of questions; that <a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_tail\" rel=\"nofollow\">long tail</a> is as important (if not moreso) than the few users with the most answers.</p>\n\n<p>And <strong>that</strong> is the big fat problem this site has to solve, of which the moderators are acutely aware: there aren't enough people answering here. It doesn't matter if you or the mod team are answering tons of questions; if y'all are the only folks active, this site is not going to do well. </p>\n\n<p>I strongly encourage you all to <strong>work together</strong> to find ways of better welcoming new answerers, introducing them to the site, and helping them to write answers that will be rewarding to the author, the asker, and those who come after.</p>\n\n<p>I intentionally appointed a fairly diverse group of moderators specifically <em>because</em> I knew this would be a challenge - my hope was <em>and remains</em> that these differences in experience and background will allow them to work with the community here to find productive ways of communicating and growing. </p>\n\n<p>Throwing this out and starting over isn't a solution; it's <strong>giving up</strong>. On the site, on the community that formed it, and on any hope we might have for its future. </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 495, "author": "Franck Dernoncourt", "author_id": 43, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/43", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "<p>2 out of 4 community mods resigned last week: <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/q/492/43\">State of the site - moderators</a></p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 513, "author": "Atl LED", "author_id": 601, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/601", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>First I should say that I only will ever have periodic participation in any SO site, this one included. That's simply due to busy life of a clinical researcher and basic scientist.</p>\n\n<p>I will also note that I have had little engagement one way or the other with negativity that might manifest in this site/community.</p>\n\n<p>I will say negativity has nothing to do with my lack of involvement here. This is the only SO site where I feel like I participate solely to help out, and don't think I can get anything out of it as a professional. For comparison, I think I can ask a doctoral level (practical or theoretical) question on .Biology, and get an equal quality response.</p>\n\n<p>With the loss of Susan and anongoodnurse we are now down two more MDs. There's a good chance MDs don't make good moderators and I'm not sure I have an opinion on their departure (I would actively not want to be one). While I'm not leaving per-se I don't have a particular desire to slug through several of the questions at a high level, if the site is not operating at a high level as a whole.</p>\n\n<p>I will also be the first to say that people with doctorates have many faults and are just as human as the public, but they are also a corner stone of modern Health/Medicine. I am no way wanting to diminish the work of nurses, technicians, engineers, etc, as they can often have <em>better</em> advice or <strong>more knowledge</strong> on any particular subject (a long time ago I was an EMT-P). </p>\n\n<p>I am <em>concerned</em>, rather, that this site doesn't seem \"worth it,\" to people I have shared it with who do have doctorates, myself included.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/325", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/114/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 333, "author": "Attilio", "author_id": 120, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/120", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Yes. This site is diagnosed with \"excess of negativity\", a degenerative disease that leads to website death by low serum level of \"active users\". The cure urges to revert the negative attitude.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 334, "author": "Attilio", "author_id": 120, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/120", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>No, everything's fine. Users are running away perhaps because summer is coming and they go to the beach..</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 336, "author": "anongoodnurse", "author_id": 169, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/169", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<blockquote>\n <p>Is Health.SE sick?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>I think it's way too early to tell.</p>\n\n<p>In keeping with your health metaphor: the site gestated in Area 51 and private beta. That's a relatively quiet time, the disagreements not visible to many. It's kind of \"being born\" now, and there are certainly associated birthing pains. I imagine many sites go through much the same thing.</p>\n\n<p>A site has to have a vision for itself, or all it will ever do is flounder. We've all been attempting to do this, and will continue to do so for a while to come, with questions such as <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/15/omg-a-site-about-health/101#101\">OMG… A site about Health?</a>, <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/79/how-much-overlap-should-there-be-with-biology-se?rq=1\">How much overlap should there be with biology.SE?</a>, <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1/should-we-require-references-to-back-up-all-answers?rq=1\">Should we require references to back up all answers?</a>, <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/112/what-are-reliable-sources?lq=1\">What are reliable sources?</a>, <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/56/are-personal-medical-advice-questions-on-topic-here?rq=1\">Are personal medical advice questions on topic here?</a> and many other up voted questions.</p>\n\n<p>I'm a doctor, not an information analyst, so a medical metaphor is perfect for me, and I'm going to carry it through. </p>\n\n<p>A patient comes to a physician with \"complaints\"; this is not jargon or judgmental, it's a historical label for the presentation of a patient. \"I'm short of breath\", \"I have a rash\", I've had a runny nose and a sore throat for a week\" are typical <em>chief complaints</em> (CC). The next step is to gather information about the CC; that's called the <em>history of the present illness</em> (HPI). But those are only two categories of information. If we didn't look at the rest of the patient (everything that's working well - called a review of systems (ROS) - and do a physical exam, we wouldn't have a very informed opinion of that patient's actual state of health.</p>\n\n<p>If you list only \"complaints\" to characterize the entire site, of course you'll come to a very different conclusion than if you actually examine <em>the entire site</em>. Looking at the bigger picture, things have slowed down since the initial rush, but that's part of defining site expectations. What I've seen here is pretty normal compared with sites I've participated on actively on SE. </p>\n\n<p>Which is not to say that we don't need to consider the complaints carefully. And I think we have been doing that, and will continue to. Still, we're in our <em>infancy</em> here. </p>\n\n<p>If you want a clearer answer, you will need to present a clearer question. A list of problems usually doesn't lead to a helpful discussion.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 358, "author": "sss4r", "author_id": 737, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/737", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I can't say, but please allow me to express one concern and share my initial experience with this SE site. I wrote potentially constructive comments which were deleted, citing the reason that comments should not contain answers. I would have been happy to copy &amp; paste my comments into an answer, but by no means am I going to spend my time retyping that information when it was uncalled for to delete them in the first place. My first experience on this site was bad, and I am on 23 other SE sites, and I've never seen a moderator delete constructive comments. </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 359, "author": "Freedo", "author_id": 767, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/767", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I'm new here, but i already don't feel like staying here.</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/875/how-often-should-i-use-mouthwash\">How often should I use mouthwash?</a></p>\n\n<p>I answered with a reliable source to this question and i got -2 votes without a reason or a comment or anything like that. Why would i keep answering anything here? Especially on the beginning of the site we must be positive and inclusive and not have this kind of attitude. The less people here, the less will come.</p>\n\n<p>The OP asked \" \"How often should I use mouthwash, and are there any consequences to doing it everyday?\" </p>\n\n<p>I answered backup-ed with studies that is ok to use it once to two times a day, without negative effects on health, unless you are treating gingivitis or other disease it's ok to use 3 times a day FOR LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME(usually dentists recommend 1 to 2 weeks) </p>\n\n<p>And i got down voted apparently because i didn't answer if is actually a necessity/recommendation to use mouthwash everyday, sorry but i'm not a paranormal person and i don't have a crystal ball</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 360, "author": "rumtscho", "author_id": 193, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/193", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>An important point you may not be aware of: if these actions (which angered or drove away some users) had not been taken, other users would have been angered or driven away. So if you are envisioning an utopic \"stop this and everybody will be happy\" world: this cannot happen. </p>\n\n<p>Health is an important part of human culture, and there are many approaches to how to handle it, and different people have a different vision of what kind of health content, and discussion of health topics, is \"good\". What is my great health advice is somebody else's dangerous misinformation. </p>\n\n<p>This is a deep social phenomenon, not something which Stack Exchange can cure. The site will have to function within a society with deeply heterogenous needs, desires and expectations of a health resource, which automatically means that a large proportion of users will be severely disappointed. </p>\n\n<p>The current approach is: we agree on a culture of what content is considered appropriate for the site, and start removing any content which is not. Every time a new user comes whose ideas of appropriate content differ, this user will feel put off and leave. This is how sites on the Stack Exchange network have always handled it. The leavings are much more numerous than on other sites, because of the abovementioned heterogeneity of beliefs, and your list of disgruntled users illustrates this nicely. </p>\n\n<p>Seeing this process in action is not a sign that there is something wrong with the site. It is possible that the site fails for some reason yet. Maybe we won't be able to build a stable core community. Maybe we will be full of people asking and will find no experts prepared to answer with the kind of answers the community values. Or something else will happen. But if we fail, it will be <em>despite</em> of the current (and unavoidable) culture-building process, not <em>because</em> of it. </p>\n\n<p>If somebody can come up with a different process of consolidating the user community, I'd be very interested in hearing it. But it can't be changed by a simple \"don't close these questions/downvote these answers/delete these comments\". If this is done, you will still see the exact same process taking place. </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 370, "author": "Fomite", "author_id": 206, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/206", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>To paraphrase a song...it's not sick, but it's not well.</p>\n\n<p>I don't necessarily think this is because we're mean to new users, or because the moderation team has gone mad with power. Rather, I think it's actually an inherent problem with the nature of this site: it's not a great place to answer questions. The reason for this, in my mind, is two-fold:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>The desired answerer is somewhere between \"Really good with Google and critical thinking\" and \"An expert in the field\". That's a pretty narrow slice of the user base, even when you take into account that SE sites generally are drawing heavily from a non-biomed demographic.</li>\n<li>There's a low payoff for being an answerer in the community sense. Sure, upvotes and reputation are nice and all, but the sites I interact with the most, I have at least <em>some</em> questions. In some ways, I answer a lot of questions on those sites as a way to paying back into the community that helps me. Honestly, I don't see myself asking questions on this site much, which somewhat reduces the motivation to answer as well.</li>\n</ul>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/332", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/120/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 346, "author": "Susan", "author_id": 165, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/165", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Yes, I think these are absolutely on topic. </p>\n\n<p>Doctors are generally expected to have a reason for their treatment choices based on: </p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>Research data </li>\n<li>Consensus of experts</li>\n<li>Personal clinical experience</li>\n<li>Theoretical likelihood of benefit</li>\n<li>Practical considerations</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>One or all of these might be relevant for any given question. All can be explained in an answer and (with the possible exception of the third) be tied to reliable references. Such answers stand to educate the reader about physiology, biomedical research, and the practice of medicine. This is at the heart of what Health.SE is about. </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 351, "author": "rumtscho", "author_id": 193, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/193", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "<p>I frankly dislike this kind of question. The problem is that not only is the answer frequently not known, but worse, people love <em>to make up pet theories about the reasons</em> and post them as if they were truth. Then others see them, think \"oh, this makes sense\" and upvote. It doesn't matter if this is the real reason, people seem to love to participate in this myth building without giving it a second thought. UX is especially plagued by these questions. </p>\n\n<p>If you are to ask <em>why a practice works</em>, then this is a good question and should be accepted. But if your question is of the type <em>Why did a doctor do X and not Y</em> in a case where both X and Y would have been feasible... well, we have no idea why. It could have been a hunch of his, him having a contract with the lab which does X, or he learning in med school a lot about X and very little about Y, or any other of a thousand reasons. But nobody here can tell you. Nevertheless, there will be a bunch of people who will tell you their guess, presenting it as truth. </p>\n\n<p>Even when the question is on the tendency of choosing a practice in a population of doctors, it doesn't work well. Sure, these are interesting questions. But they would need sufficient historical research before they can be answered. And the answer is often boring: \"This is how the first guy did it and it became so widespread it got to be a quasi standard, and from then on, nobody had the reason to change something that works, even if a later option would have been marginally better\". But the votes tend to go to the people who offer clever ideas, even when they are untrue. </p>\n\n<p>Maybe this site could do better than UX in this regard, because of the culture of not-upvoting answers without references, and not offering simple guesses as answers. But in this case, I don't think you'll even get answers. The real ones are hard to find and not very useful anyway. </p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/345", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/-1/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 348, "author": "Tim Post", "author_id": 159, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/159", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Think about it like writing a recipe. If I say that you should preheat your oven to 200 degrees, I should <em>really</em> specify what kind of degrees. 200 Degrees F would barely slow-roast a chicken, while 200 Degrees C would surely put some brisk in your brisket.</p>\n\n<p>When talking about temperature, just note the scale. It's pretty obvious what I'm using if I say \"Anything close to 40 degrees is a high fever and should have you hunting for some paracetamol\", but it's nice to note. I also don't recommend strictly enforcing this in cases where it's just obvious what is meant. </p>\n\n<p>Everything else is pretty straight forward for conversion.</p>\n\n<p>While the world is advanced, some folks still have to try and fill 60% of a tablespoon, while the rest of us just pour out 10 ml and be done with it. Let's not badger anyone unless there really is ambiguity.</p>\n\n<p>And as it's currently a balmy 313.15 degrees Kelvin where I am, I'm off to get something cold and lemon-y. </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 349, "author": "terdon", "author_id": 222, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/222", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>If you really want to have a default, that should be metric. There is a clear consensus in favor of metric in the sciences. I have never seen imperial units used in peer-reviewed papers.</p>\n\n<p>Both biological and medical journals will insist on using metric and won't allow imperial. At least, none of the ones I have published in or read in my ~15 years as a biologist do. </p>\n\n<p>So, if you're going for a standard, use metric. Whether or not this site really needs a rigorous standard for this is another question. This is not a peer-reviewed journal, it's a site for \"medical specialists, students, dietitians, and anyone with health-related questions\". However, if a standard is to be decided I would recommend it is the standard already adopted in the broader field of the health sciences: metric. </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 350, "author": "rumtscho", "author_id": 193, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/193", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Note that you won't be able to force the users to write the units you want. On Cooking, we're glad when they at least think of writing down which scale they are using, C or F, but they frequently don't do that. </p>\n\n<p>We have made the experience that they don't complain when their post is edited to show <em>both</em> units, so we frequently do this. But it is based on a guess what they meant. Luckily, it's frequently visible from context from us (we hope nobody's fridge went to 45 C), I don't know how it will be on Health. </p>\n\n<p>If Health decides to enforce a single unit, the consequences will be </p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>the majority of users will disregard the guidelines</li>\n<li>people will have to take the time to edit lots of others' posts. If only a few editors do it, it may feel like a Sisyphean task after time. </li>\n<li>if there is one unit chosen, people will grumble when the post they wrote and understood is changed to a unit they can't understand or relate to. So the only way to not disgruntle them is to edit posts to contain both units.</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>See also the old Cooking <a href=\"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/104/standardized-units\">discussion on enforcing standard units</a> (despite the accepted answer, almost nobody bothers with edits - maybe C to F are a bit more common, because there are more Americans around) and <a href=\"https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/105/inline-unit-conversion\">this request</a> which resulted in a user script. I don't use it, but I hear some of the regular users are happy with it. </p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/347", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/99/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 354, "author": "Ooker", "author_id": 99, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/99", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I'm the one who make that comment. I admit that I didn't write all what I intend to say in my mind.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>But, after I do the research and say this is what I have found - is this true and effective, won't it then be suited better on Skeptics.SE where the answer rate is higher than this site?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>~> Yes, it will be better for <em>you</em> (and even the internet) if you post <em>skeptical</em> question in that site. Now I'm not a member there, so I don't really have any idea how it works. But I think that's how you should ask.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Why should I then post here?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>~> For <em>skeptical</em> question, I think the only reason that you would like to post here is: you feel attach to this site, and want to help it grow. That's all. The health content is not a big impact, I think. I have seen a lot of questions about biology in there. </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>The reason of this meta post is not to justify that question but to understand what kind of research is expected and how to form the question such that people get tempted to post here instead of Skeptics.SE?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>~> Now this is what I'm missing when make that comment. I think just ask questions like you used to ask. You have a lot of experience in the SE system (maybe more than me), so it should be natural for you. Just <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask\">\"tell us what you found and why it didn’t meet your needs\"</a>. Doesn't matter which site you read, when you find something you are not understand, not enough information, or state something skeptical, just show it here and people will answer it. </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 355, "author": "anongoodnurse", "author_id": 169, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/169", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I upvoted @OOker's answer. I'd like to provide an answer of my own as a user, then a moderator.</p>\n\n<p>If after research,</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Why should I then post here?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>That's up to you. I welcome good questions because they're going to help the site. But after you've put in the effort of researching, if you feel you'll get a better answer on Skeptics, that's your prerogative. If you want a more medical answer, you might be better here.</p>\n\n<p>As a user, I'm not particularly inclined to write a well-referenced answer to any question which shows no research whatsoever. That is true on EL&amp;U, Biology, and almost all other sites I visit. And the feeling is, I believe, quite ancient: in the writings of Sophocles (c.409 BCE) appear the lines, </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>\"No good e'er comes of leisure purposeless; And heaven ne’er helps the men who will not act.\" </p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>The same appears in the writings of Euripides (428 BCE):</p>\n\n<p>\"Try first thyself, and after call in God; For to the worker God himself lends aid.\"</p>\n\n<p>Or as my mother used to say, \"God helps those who help themselves\" (not that I'm a god, of course. Today that fable would be phrased differently.) </p>\n\n<p>As a voluntary user, I'm more likely to look favorably on a question that shows some effort (or is particularly interesting to me) than one that does not.</p>\n\n<p>As a moderator, this is a bit trickier, because I want to promote the health of the site. Instinctively, this is still an SE site, where early on <a href=\"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/135049/encouraging-users-to-try-something-before-asking-write-me-code-that-questio/135051#135051\">Gimme teh codez</a> type questions were not particularly well received or <a href=\"https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/135051/262486\"><em>welcome</em></a>. They were down voted.</p>\n\n<p>New sites always seem to go through this phase of self definition/expectations, some of them for a very long time, and Health.SE is not so different. Also, new users come along who are not regular SE users, so there is more flexibility with those users. Sometimes when I see a simple question without any additional information, I base my response on their SE profile: if they presumably have SE experience, I expect more before the desire to answer the question kicks in; if they are SE naïve, I'll answer more quickly than if they are not. </p>\n\n<p>As a moderator, I also want to see a higher percentage of the questions answered, so will sometimes answer the bare-bones questions, but sometimes not, because the community needs to set the standards as well. We need a community of regular, informed users to do this, and we need to set standards on the quality of the questions as well, either by asking for more in comments, down voting, and/or not answering. That's something every invested member decides how to do for themselves.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/353", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/71/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 362, "author": "anongoodnurse", "author_id": 169, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/169", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I will give the same answer (with differences dependant on site) that I gave to this exact same question posted at the same time (using the exact same terminology) on <a href=\"https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3107/\">Biology.SE</a>:</p>\n\n<p>There is an inherent bias in your query. Of course some new users are going to get down votes. Some get many downvotes (does your query differentiate that?) while others will get only one (or none).</p>\n\n<p>You're comparing questions asked by new users, which are sometimes very poor (or even trollish), and as such, they receive multiple down votes.</p>\n\n<p>Seasoned users (though this is a much newer site than Health.SE) know what fits on this site, and as such, will not ask as many inappropriate questions.</p>\n\n<p>I don't think down votes are given superfluously, and I don't think they are excessive here. <strong>They are part of the SE model, which many people find intrinsically unfriendly.</strong> * They are an integral part of teaching all users what is considered appropriate aor of poor quality on every site.</p>\n\n<p>To answer your question, if you base \"friendliness of a site\" on down votes on new users, then no, Health.SE is not too harsh on new users. You need to look at the whole picture. Were helpful comments left? Are edits done to new users' questions to try to salvage them where possible? Are migrations (to better sites) suggested? This counts as much - if not more - towards the friendliness of the site.</p>\n\n<p>*The fact that this same question was asked on two SE sites serves to emphasize that <em>the SE model</em> is one that is seen as intrinsically unfriendly by many. The fact that this was asked on such such similar sites reinforces this further.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 576, "author": "Graham Chiu", "author_id": 3414, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/3414", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "<p>I think it's a cultural issue. A clique forms with the initial users and the subsequent users follow the culture developed by the early users. It becomes self propagating, and when someone new posts outside those cultural norms, they get down voted. Many new users will leave. Those rules may be also unwritten so that a new user will not know what they are doing incorrectly. So, your post maybe entirely within topic for the group in question, but it may have violated some unwritten rule. It's entirely human, natural and predictable because users/moderators are human. Perhaps it could be circumvented a little if votes were cast like those for closing a question where a reason has to be selected from a formal list.</p>\n\n<p>I saw one user who got down voted or criticized for answering correctly a basic biochemistry answer. He was told he needed to provide a reference ( must be a rule specific to health). Was he supposed to link to page number and edition of a basic biochemistry text which is unlikely to be online? I see he hasn't come back.</p>\n\n<p>So, at least from this example I see health as inimical to knowledgeable users who don't wish to play the game, and moderated by other users with far less knowledge then some new posters.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 634, "author": "辛祐賦 hsinyofu", "author_id": 6873, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/6873", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "<p>As a new user of less than 2 days, here's my honest opinion. </p>\n\n<p>I gave 4 answers, with 2 accepted (50 points), combined with negative ratings of -13 at one point. I quickly learned that answering horrible worded questions will lead to negative votes. The two questions that I got me a combined score of -13, were down voted to oblivion as well. </p>\n\n<p>That being said, I deleted my \"bad answers\" to \"bad questions\" and eventually recovered to 45 points. The other -5 points were for not providing \"references\" and for something I posted? Not really sure because the person who down voted never explained nor responded, just a down vote. Now, here's the problem, new users who do not understand the SE model will be bombarded with negative points. It's bad enough to not have any \"privileges\" such as editing a question (1000 points) to make it sound better, new users are not able to comment (50 points) and ask the OP to clarify question. </p>\n\n<p>I can understand the importance of using references as to prevent psuedoscience and broscience from infiltrating this place, yet, sometimes this place feels more like the Ivory Tower where bureaucracy and hierarchy is important. Those with more \"privileges\" have more \"rights\" and are more \"authorized\" than others. Now think about this. How can someone recover if they post a bad question and receive negative votes as their first interaction with the site? They won't even be able to answer a question. The point I want to make with references is this. Do we just want references or can this place be a place for some sort of discussion, in the comments section of course (not as an answer). </p>\n\n<p>Is this SE limited to only Medical Doctors, or can researchers, phDs, paramedics, also participate? Can we give personal experience if we are health care professionals? What about personal experience for patients? I think this site can be much better if there is an active participation of both patients, regular folks, as well as health care professionals. Yet, I feel as if the rules of this site is rigid and exclusive. Anyone other than healthcare professionals are unqualified to answer, even those who are healthcare professionals are being down voted.</p>\n\n<p>Here is an example of over zealous down voting, <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/9344/which-medical-specialist-should-be-consulted-for-anus-polyp/9385#9385\">Which medical specialist should be consulted for anus polyp?</a>\nI got two down votes for my answer, do we need to provide references for which doctors to consult? I later clarified the answer, as I feel this question can be improved on (obviously as a new user, Im not qualified to improve answers)</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/361", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/83/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 364, "author": "Susan", "author_id": 165, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/165", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I’m open to re-opening it if people disagree. My logic in putting it on hold was that:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li><p>Recommendations differ. There isn’t a single authoritative source for this. As such, each nutrient would require examination of the available data to make a well-supported recommendation. </p></li>\n<li><p>If we limit this to a few established bodies that make such recommendations, it seems like it would just become a long list of nutrients (you included: \"vitamins, minerals &amp; amino acids [including oils like Omega-3/6]”), which doesn’t seem like a good format for a SE Q&amp;A because it doesn’t involve any real explanation.</p></li>\n<li><p>The last part, “And what I can eat without restriction (no toxicity)?” seems to broaden it further. </p></li>\n<li><p>You started an answer that doesn’t seem to be covered by the question but seems to do a good job answering something that might be a good question here. That might be something like, “How are recommendations for micronutrient intake quantified, and how are the various indices used?” If this question is meant to include that <em>as well</em> as everything that is explicitly contained in the question in the moment, this seems to broaden it yet further. </p></li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>But as I said, I’m certainly open to hearing other opinions and re-opening it if the community thinks it should stand as is. I appreciate that you’re trying to make this site a good resource and that you’re using Meta appropriately to sort out these issues. </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 365, "author": "anongoodnurse", "author_id": 169, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/169", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Every SE site will reject as \"too broad\" any question which can be answered <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask\">by writing an entire book</a>.</p>\n\n<p>Your question (<a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/1369/\">What is the recommended intake of nutrients?</a>) has <a href=\"https://www.google.com/#q=books+on+nutrition+science&amp;tbm=shop\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">hundreds of books written on that exact subject</a>. </p>\n\n<p>The fact that there is no single authority means that the subject is not scientifically and definitively settled. Also, the answer can vary from one geographical area to another.</p>\n\n<p>It really is way too broad.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/363", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/767/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 379, "author": "Carey Gregory", "author_id": 805, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/805", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Definitely not. Immediate deletion should be reserved for spam, inappropriate behavior, etc. Everything else is a judgement. I've seen more than one good answer get hoisted out of comments and made into a real answer days after being posted. I've done it myself. It would be a real shame to have had those comments summarily deleted.</p>\n\n<p>I answer in comments only when all the following are true:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>I find the question somewhat trivial or obvious; when, for example, pasting the title into google produces multiple correct answers as the first hits.</li>\n<li>I think I can provide an answer that is unequivocally correct and won't be disputed. Not necessarily the best answer, but one that is correct and will meet the OP's needs if no one else provides a proper answer.</li>\n<li>No one else has answered.</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>I could be wrong but I suspect many others follow similar criteria. </p>\n\n<p>I think a reasonable policy would be to delete comment answers that are possibly dangerous, or grossly and patently wrong, but the authors of reasonable ones should be encouraged to post them as answers. A hostile response to such a reasonable request would be good enough in my view to delete the whole mess. I don't find avoiding comment wars a good justification for deleting answers just because they're posted in the wrong place, but it's a fine justification for terminating them.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 380, "author": "michaelpri", "author_id": 26, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I think this is a very important thing to discuss as comments can be as, if not more, dangerous than answers, especially if the claims they make are not backed up. </p>\n\n<p>What I believe should be our policy on answers in the comments is we should always delete them. <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment\">Comments</a> are for:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><p>Request[ing] <strong>clarification</strong> from the author;</p></li>\n<li><p>Leav[ing] <strong>constructive criticism</strong> [to guide] the author in improving the post;</p></li>\n<li><p>Add[ing] relevant but minor or transient information to a post (e.g. a link to a related question, or an alert to the author that the question has been updated).</p></li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>They are not for several things, one of which includes is: </p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>Answering a question or providing an alternate solution to an existing answer; instead, post an actual answer (or edit to expand an existing one);</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>This means that we should delete all comments in answers. It is actually an SE policy (though many sites don't follow it). As <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/378/should-answers-in-comments-be-immediately-deleted/380?noredirect=1#comment2137_380\">mentioned below in the comments by @anongoodnurse</a>, answers in the comments are just \"answers which cannot be down voted.\" We do not want this. Voting is how we determine what content is good or bad. That is why all answers in the comments should be deleted with a label left saying something like </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>&lt;comments deleted> <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/q/378/26\">Please do not leave answers in the comments.</a> Instead, it would be appreciated if you leave an actual answer (with references) below.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<h3>How can we do this?</h3>\n\n<p>If we decide to do this, it will put an extra burden on the moderators. It doesn't have to be only our job, though. As I talked about in <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/352/we-need-more-community-moderation\">We need more Community Moderation</a>, we need you, the community to help make this happen. Flag comments that are answers, we will try to review them as soon as we can. If the claim is dangerous, be the one to step up and tell the commenter that. This will be something hard to enforce, but it is possible if we can get the community to help.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 443, "author": "Ooker", "author_id": 99, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/99", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Instead of delete it, I think we can</p>\n<h1>Make it a community wiki answer.</h1>\n<p>There are two opinions in this issue. One is that answers in comments cannot be judged by the voting system - a bad answer cannot be shown as bad. The other is that sometimes it's the choice of the commenter, they don't have time and effort to make a good answer, but thinking that this is definitely a good one, and should spread it for the sake of the knowledge.</p>\n<p>Community wiki answer is exactly born for that. In the Stack Overflow blog post, <a href=\"https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/the-future-of-community-wiki/\">The Future of Community Wiki</a>, there is a paragraph to explain the function of CW answer:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The intent of community wiki in answers is to <strong>help share the burden of solving a question.</strong> An incomplete &quot;seed&quot; answer is a stepping stone to a complete solution with help from others; an incomplete question is a hindrance and an obstacle to getting a solution as no one understands the inquiry. It is in answers that the goal of community wiki, for the community, by the community, shows its truest colors.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>A CW answer is still an answer, therefore one can vote for it to rise or sink if required.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 447, "author": "JohnP", "author_id": 64, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/64", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Yes, answers in comments should be immediately deleted, as they are counter to the way the SE system is intended to work. They cannot be downvoted, as can a poor actual answer.</p>\n<p>See these meta questions about comments and how the system is intended to work:</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/214173/why-do-i-need-50-reputation-to-comment-what-can-i-do-instead\">Why does commenting require reputation?</a></p>\n<p><a href=\"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/19756/how-do-comments-work\">How do comments work?</a></p>\n<p>Here is a relevant excerpt:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Comments exist so that users can talk about questions and answers without posting new answers that do not actually answer their parent questions. Comments are often used to ask for clarification on, suggest corrections to and provide meta-information about posts.</p>\n<p>Comments are intentionally short, having maximum length of 600 characters, and allow only limited markup. URLs in comments automatically become hyperlinks. Each user may post only one comment every 15 seconds.</p>\n<p>Comments are disposable: unlike posts, there's no revision history, and they can be deleted without warning by their authors, by moderators, and in response to flags.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p><em>In theory</em> this should be the way every stack exchange site should treat comments. However, this also relies heavily on the community to moderate, as it is not feasible to expect a small team of moderators to vet every single comment on every single question/answer.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/378", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/169/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 385, "author": "michaelpri", "author_id": 26, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I think that recommendations that ask for apps or software should be off-topic and migrated to <a href=\"https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/\">Software Recommendations SE</a> (if they are a good question with enough information). Because we already have an SE site that can take these questions, I don't think that we should have to deal with them as they are not always directly related to health, and they can be very broad or opinionated. </p>\n\n<p>Recommendations asking for resources where you learn about medical or health related topics should be on-topic. As long as the OP is looking for resources that actually have to deal with health, and they are not too broad, we should keep them. Something that isn't too broad is , <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/1523/brain-wave-research\">https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/1523/brain-wave-research</a> (though it is most likely better fit on <a href=\"https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/\">Cognitive Sciences SE</a>). It is asking for a specific topic, in this case resources that have information about the effects of depression on brainwaves, then I think that it is a good, answerable question. Had it instead been asking for resources with information about brainwaves, then it should be closed as too broad because there's hundreds of resources out there that can help you learn about brainwaves. </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 469, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I think many people will come here looking for legitimate places to find legitimate help for whatever concerns they have. I don't think this community will ever be able to eliminate \"recommendation\" questions, but I don't think it should. I don't think this means the community should help with prescriptions and specific topics like that, but I think “broad” questions are valid. For example, I asked this question:\n<a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/3637/is-there-a-good-site-for-drug-reviews?noredirect=1#comment5946_3637\">Is there a good site for drug reviews?</a></p>\n\n<p>Maybe I should have asked that better. I shouldn't have asked if there is <em>a</em> good site, but rather if there <em>are</em> good site<em>s</em>. I think this kind of question is legitimate. </p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/384", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 388, "author": "Freedo", "author_id": 767, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/767", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Yes. Drugs are a integrated part of human beings since before the first text was written. Also hallucinogenic mushrooms are not even illegal in many countries. And this should not matter in this site. I don't know any country where is forbidden to discuss/talk about any drug.</p>\n\n<p>We shouldn't censure any kind of discussion about any kind of drug, illegal or not. This is not only hypocritical since drugs and humans walk together since immemorial times. But centuries of war on drugs also show us that the only way we can deal with drugs is with education, discussion, understanding. Not censoring or repressing. </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 389, "author": "rumtscho", "author_id": 193, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/193", "pm_score": 4, "selected": true, "text": "<h2>From an ethical point of view: a solid yes</h2>\n\n<p>Is there a chance that freely available information about drugs will increase the damage drugs do to society? I have known and still know drug users from teen-aged to 40+, as well as kids who had access to drugs but chose not to do them. My impression is: </p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>such information won't lead to non-users becoming users</strong>. Drugs are not an \"out of sight, out of mind\" matter, they are very much in sight. And keeping them a mysterious taboo actually increases their allure. On the other hand, discussion like \"There is also evidence that 6-MAM binds to a subtype of μ-opioid receptors that are also activated by the morphine metabolite morphine-6β-glucuronide but not morphine itself\" doesn't produce a yearning to try a drug, it brings it from the realm of cool dudes doing forbidden things to the realm of boring eggheads. </li>\n<li><strong>such information will have neutral or slightly positive effect on the number of users kicking the habit</strong> I don't see how good information about the medical side of illegal drug use can prevent somebody from stopping. In fact, somebody wishing to stop needs strong social support, and if somebody in this position finds on this site a place where he is heard and taken seriously, this will be one more small prop of the hundreds he needs to get back on track. </li>\n<li><strong>such information will have slightly positive effect on drug users</strong> Educated drug users are more likely to use their drug in a safe way, avoiding overdose and comorbidities. Thus harm to this particular part of society is reduced when there is more information about less harmful drug practices. If you are worried about this tricking non-users into thinking that doing drugs is safe overall: Everybody I know can discriminate the danger of overdose from the danger of addiction, even in early puberty. I've never heard somebody say \"well, if this is a safe way to take it, I'll try\".</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>So having more good quality information easily available will likely neither increase the number of drug users, nor increase the amount of damage drugs are doing to their existing users. It could even have the opposite effect. </p>\n\n<h2>From a cultural point of view: a more cautious yes</h2>\n\n<p>I dislike the generalized censoring of information, turning certain subjects taboo or even illegal. But we humans can, and should, hold back discussion of certain topics under certain circumstances, out of consideration for others for example. So the question is, is this discussion appropriate for a Stack Exchange site? </p>\n\n<p>For my personal understanding, and in the culture of the social circles I move, a levelheaded discussion on drugs from a medical point of view is appropriate for most settings, including a professional one. I opened the drug-related question today from my work computer and did not think anything of it. </p>\n\n<p>But cultures are different, and sometimes, it can be a big deal. The network has had incidents before due to controversial topics making it into the list of hot questions, even back when the list was hidden in the notorious multicollider. Among the objective arguments brought up in one such situation by Jeff Atwood was that this content, once it appears on Stack Overflow, risks the site being automatically put onto the nanny list of corporate filters, so that a discussion on English could have deprived thousands of programmers of SO help and also seriously hurt the SERP placement of the whole network. In another case, users were very upset by a question about marijuana butter on Cooking. </p>\n\n<p>Regardless of how open the Health users are towards questions about illegal drugs, whenever they are mentioned in the title, they will probably have enough magnetism to get the most views (drugs are a subject on which <em>everybody</em> has an opinion) and will probably jump onto the hot question list, leading to the lamented effect plaguing some SE sites: \"our worst questions get on the hot list\". </p>\n\n<p>I would still like to see legitimate medical questions about illegal drugs included, because they are very much part of human health and disease. But if we don't like the potential cross-community effect, we might try to think of preventive strategies, maybe extensive editing of the titles to sound as neutral as possible. </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 396, "author": "Wad Cheber", "author_id": 838, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/838", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>It appears to me that if someone is coming here to ask about illegal drugs, they are probably going to use them regardless of whether their question is answered. Ignoring the issue of whether all illegal drugs are harmful, it should be obvious that what is (or isn't) said here probably won't change the person's behavior.</p>\n\n<p>Since we can't stop people from using drugs, even if we wanted to do so, I think the best course of action is to give the person the information they are looking for, in the hopes of allowing them to make the best decision possible. An informed drug user is better than an uninformed drug user. </p>\n\n<p>It is up to you to decide whether or not to advise the person to avoid the substance in question, but if we assume that the person is going to use drugs either way, it makes sense to provide all the information that would help them do so as safely as possible.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/387", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/613/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 412, "author": "Franck Dernoncourt", "author_id": 43, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/43", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>It is fine. It's often clearer to state a question focusing on specifying the problem, and have answers bringing the research, as <a href=\"https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/3332/7654\">Skeptics does</a>, for example.</p>\n\n<p>Questions without research here are not the same as <a href=\"https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/135051/178179\">Gimme teh codez</a> questions on SO, as the latter just ask for a solution to be copy-pasted without trying to understand what's going on.</p>\n\n<p>On a more pragmatic note: </p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>the vast majority of the ~800 questions posted here so far don't show any research</li>\n<li>as a patient it is sometimes difficult to know where to start looking for trustworthy information (and a lot of it is behind <a href=\"https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/51730/452\">pay-wall</a>)</li>\n<li>it might be better to state a simple question rather than adding some unreliable sources in the question.</li>\n</ul>\n" }, { "answer_id": 413, "author": "anongoodnurse", "author_id": 169, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/169", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I think it's fine to post questions that don't show any research, only if:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <ul>\n <li>it's equally fine to choose to ignore them</li>\n <li>it's equally fine to choose to downvote them</li>\n <li>it's equally fine to choose to comment asking the OP to improve them</li>\n <li>it's equally fine to ultimately close them when they have been hanging around with downvotes long enough to be clutter on the site</li>\n <li>it's equally fine to use them as examples on meta of the kinds of questions that are considered poor</li>\n </ul>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>If the possible reactions to this option are in any way objectionable, then it just shouldn't be done.</p>\n\n<p>I've said it before, so I'm aware that I'm repeating myself here, but I'm certainly not interested in answering such a question unless I have some special interest in the topic.</p>\n\n<p>To answer your supporting arguments each in turn:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>-the best majority of the ~800 questions posted here so far don't show any research</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>This is called a red herring. It means nothing except that a lot of questions show no research effort.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <ul>\n <li>as a patient it is sometimes difficult to know where to start looking for trustworthy information</li>\n </ul>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>If someone can find an SE site and figure out how to post a question, they probably know how to google <em>something</em>, or explain why they can't.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <ul>\n <li>it might be better to state a simple question rather than adding some unreliable sources in the question.</li>\n </ul>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Every mistake is an opportunity to learn. If someone really believes in a source and goes to the effort of posting it, I think that's still a better question.</p>\n\n<p>As <a href=\"http://fablesofaesop.com/hercules-and-the-wagoner.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">Hercules said</a>, the gods help those who first at least try to help themselves (that's a paraphrase of his actual mythological words.) Not that answerers are gods or anything. We're all only human.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 455, "author": "kenorb", "author_id": 114, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/114", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>To improve your chances of getting an answer, you need to demonstrate that you’ve taken enough time to thoroughly search for an answer before asking your question. This saves the site from reiterating obvious answers and helps to get a more specific and relevant answers.</p>\n\n<p>In other words, your should give enough details and context (highlighting exactly what you need), so it can answerable and can produce valuable and good answers.</p>\n\n<p>Here are few highlights from this <a href=\"https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/210840/191655\">post</a> to better understand this:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <ul>\n <li>When I ask for effort, what I'm really looking for is a starting point, some context for where the problem actually exists. Without\n that, it's like trying to diagnose engine trouble over the phone.</li>\n <li>Effort leads to much more interesting questions.</li>\n <li>The \"effort\" isn't just effort towards solving the problem, it's also effort towards making the problem easier to solve for whoever\n reading the question.</li>\n <li>Lack of research effort leading to countless duplicates.</li>\n <li>Lack of effort describing the problem, leading to unclear and misleading questions.</li>\n <li>Lack of presentation effort, leading to hard to read questions.</li>\n <li>The three step: effort of providing context, stating the problem clearly, and explaining why obvious solutions don't work was just\n useful for me.</li>\n <li>The amount of effort by the asker is not a good indication of a good question.</li>\n </ul>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>For more detailed explanation, please refer to help pages:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask\">How do I ask a good question?</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask\">What types of questions should I avoid asking?</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/210840/191655\">Should Stack Overflow (and Stack Exchange in general) be awarding “A”s for Effort?</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/260828/55075\">Do we need a close reason for zero-effort questions?</a></li>\n</ul>\n" }, { "answer_id": 460, "author": "Count Iblis", "author_id": 856, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/856", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Unlike other StackExchange subjects, here the subject matter itself (i.e. the patients) show up from time to time. Doctors don't usually turn patients away who ask questions about their conditions for lack of research.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 1137, "author": "Chris Rogers", "author_id": 7951, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/7951", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>On top of listing what you have read on the subject so we know what you have read so far and may not quite understand, another reason for asking for evidence of prior research is that there can be assumptions made within the question which do not hold true within medical science.</p>\n\n<p>If another reader takes those assumptions as fact, that can cause confusion for them too when learning.</p>\n\n<p>Just as expected in answers, if you make a claim to know something, please provide some evidence to back it up.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/411", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/43/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 419, "author": "JohnP", "author_id": 64, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/64", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I would refer you to this meta question, which has already been asked and answered. </p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1/should-we-require-references-to-back-up-all-answers/103#103\">Should we require references to back up all answers?</a></p>\n\n<p>Strongly encourage and required both got a large number of upvotes. Also note, that neither of these answers were provided by moderators, they were supplied by users like yourself. </p>\n\n<p>Your answer on that suggesting that \"in the lack of evidence, we rely on our body design\" was downvoted, and that you have been asked and warned by the moderators to back up your claims with the strongly encouraged/required references. Currently you have 22 answers (Some deleted) and in many of them are requests to back up your assertions with references. Your response to the request for references is to highlight a few words and say \"e.g. here\" for the reader to go to another place to read the article. As pointed out by a CM moderator in <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/211/what-to-do-when-a-question-is-precisely-answered-by-a-wikipedia-page-or-section/212#212\">this answer to another meta question</a>, this is bad practice as well.</p>\n\n<p>You may also note my answer on that question, stating that fitness (A much softer science than health) challenges assertions as well, and tries to steer away from \"bro-science\" and \"common knowledge\" answers without backup. (And that was written well before I became a moderator).</p>\n\n<p>Currently the community has spoken that they want their information backed up, and by all appearances this is another attempt to circumvent that desire. If the community wants to come out and collectively say that references are superfluous, then we can revisit the stricture on references. Until that time, we would expect you to adhere to the structure set in place by the users of the community.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 420, "author": "anongoodnurse", "author_id": 169, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/169", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<blockquote>\n <p>...especially in a soft-science topic like health which suffers from a lack of rigorous scientific research...</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>The first thing that came to my mind when I read this sentence was the <strong>amazing science</strong> done by Louis Pasteur. There was nothing \"soft\" about his science, and countless millions of people are alive today only because of his tremendous scientific contributions. Your faulty characterization of medical science reveals a deep lack of understanding not only of medicine but of science in general.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>One should not confuse \"health\" with \"medicine\"...</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Medicine is all about health. There are plenty of healthy people who know nothing of science or medicine, but that hardly means they are experts on the subject, or that a site such as health should allow any person who may have some health to express their erroneous opinions.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>...where you sometimes have not well motivated research being done done and bad conclusions drawn as a result.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>What has this to do with our site? Every field has suffered from badly designed studies and/or misinterpretation of results. </p>\n\n<p>Similarly, your decision not to take the medical literature seriously is not an adequate reason to allow you or others to post answers without citations. Probably the great majority of people who write answers consider them well written, even if they are <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/a/1491/169\"><em>completely wrong</em></a>. That's because of a failure to distinguish beliefs from facts. No one is immune to this common error. </p>\n\n<p>That is why beliefs are not enough on Health.SE.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/418", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/856/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 433, "author": "Fomite", "author_id": 206, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/206", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Well, since I was the one who posted the comment you quoted, I suppose it behooves me to respond.</p>\n\n<p>That quote is entirely about <em>the content of the questions and answers</em> and has nothing to do with moderation. What exactly are you suggesting the mods be pressured to \"do\" exactly? Sit around making up thought provoking questions, and insightful answers? How could they possibly be expected to do that on a topic as broad as \"health\"? Would that not just end up being weird performance art, rather than an actual functional site?</p>\n\n<p>The mods are not content providers, nor should they be. If this sites \"big problem\" is indeed that there is a lot of noise in terms of low quality, hit and run, \"Does this look infected to you?\" type questions, it's on the community.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 434, "author": "Ooker", "author_id": 99, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/99", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Atl LED's comments may be the solution for this:</p>\n\n<h2><a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/q/352/99\">We need more Community Moderation</a></h2>\n\n<p>I think that's the way it is. The problem may never be solved, but its consequences will be kept in limited. The bad questions appears because the site itself doesn't have enough people to help the mods. What the site needs is not more work of the mods, but the time for it to grow. </p>\n\n<p>That's why it is in beta. My problem is wanting to see it grows so bad. </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 437, "author": "James", "author_id": 1671, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/1671", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I'm not a user nor a lurker, so am not familiar with the site. </p>\n\n<p>I saw this from MSE and thought I'd <strike>stick my nose in</strike> respond from a new user/neutral perspective. </p>\n\n<p>You don't outline any problems in your question other than the moderators should do \"something\". So I (as I'm sure others users will be) am not sure what it is you feel they should do, and so have no ideas nor arguments either way as to whether they should do \"that\" or not. </p>\n\n<p>The only actual issue I can take from you question is: </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>How to make more pressure on the mods?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Pressure to do <em>what</em>? If you mean generate more content, then that's their <em>choice</em> as standard users of this site and without obligation, just like you and everyone else. </p>\n\n<p>If you mean duties they are <em>obligated</em> to do as a moderator, then you will have to be clear on what the problems are which need resolving. </p>\n\n<p><br /> </p>\n\n<h2>Clueless outsider</h2>\n\n<p>Maybe because I'm not familiar with the site that there is some \"inside\" known problem around here. However, that doesn't make it ok for your question to be vague, as this makes it difficult to develop useful discussions and viable suggestions to be proposed. </p>\n\n<p>There will also be lurkers, and users with regular activity on other Stack Exchange sites who are clued up on the general structure of the sites who could perhaps chip in and suggest things, such as something which worked on another site, etc. They cannot help unless the problem is outlined clearly. </p>\n\n<p>I did see some <em>meaty</em> discussions loosely linked from this question about \"not enough content\" and \"need more moderators\". Neither of which are moderator duties. </p>\n\n<p>If the issue is \"poor content/inaccurate voting, etc\", then you need to realise the responsibility to keep the site clean and moderated on a basic level is <em>mostly</em> on <em>community</em> (non-moderators). So that would invalidate this question being about moderators (tho I'm still unsure what your question is about). </p>\n\n<p><br /> </p>\n\n<h2>This site</h2>\n\n<p>Is quite new, and is obviously trying to gather a bit of motion, and because of that I cannot see why there is any moderator issue yet, not until there is a lot more and regular content being posted, reviewed, etc, which requires moderator intervention. </p>\n\n<p>To make the site work and generate more content, and more and returning users, the general community (you, not moderators) need to be really friendly, welcome people, comment and answer best you can and as quickly as you can. Vote where appropriate as much as possible, and generally put a lot of effort in to make the site grow. </p>\n\n<p>This has nothing to do with requirements from moderators either, and until this happens, I cannot see what moderator issue there would be (again, without you being more specific). </p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>I'd honestly stick around and help out, but I know nothing about medical things whatsoever.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/432", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/99/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 436, "author": "JohnP", "author_id": 64, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/64", "pm_score": 4, "selected": true, "text": "<p>Your answer for this is simple, in that the community needs to make more of an effort towards the unanswered questions. Currently there are 279 unanswered questions on the site, some of which can either be voted to close (VTC) by the high enough rep users, or flagged for moderator attention if the user is of lower rep.</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://scifi.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1387/answer-the-unanswered-questions\">https://scifi.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1387/answer-the-unanswered-questions</a></p>\n\n<p>Many sites have \"pushathon\" type periods where efforts are made to clean up, edit, answer or close as appropriate. (Editing also gets you reputation points when approved). </p>\n\n<p>I think it's a good idea, by getting more answers our ratio numbers improve, rep improves, people become more engaged, and as we start getting more high rep users, the community moderation becomes an easier task.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 490, "author": "YviDe", "author_id": 1830, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/1830", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>It's all well and good to point out that there's a need for more answers, as the unanswered questions mountain is not getting any smaller (currently at almost 400 questions), but there's another important thing:</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/10/vote-early-vote-often/\">Vote early, vote often</a> </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Does your site have a healthy middle class of users with vote up and down, and edit tag privileges? Does it have a healthy governing class of users with edit, close, and moderation privileges?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Quite frankly, Health.SE doesn't. Sure, there's around 30 users who could vote to close questions, but most of the closing I see is due to a moderator closing a question. Rarely do 5 users vote to close one question. I see 4 closed questions on the main page right now, all of the closed ones were closed by a moderator, with between 1 and 3 user votes. </p>\n\n<p>Out of the 10 users with most rep, 6 haven't written an answer in over a month and 2 haven't even logged in during the last week. Looking at other users with more than 500 rep, I see more of the same pattern. </p>\n\n<p>There's an average of 6 questions coming in every day. Even considering one or two get closed, the number of unanswered questions gets higher. The problem, in my opinion, isn't only that there's not enough users with high reputation, the primary problem is that there's <em>not enough answers</em>, and a secondary problem is that there's a lack of users voting*. And this leads to this problem of not enough active users with moderation privileges. On a site that only has two moderators at the moment, that's problematic. </p>\n\n<p>I'm afraid I can't really give a solution to that problem, just share my thoughts on it, and this is way too long for a comment. </p>\n\n<p>For example,</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>more voting could lead to more motivation. If a new or newish user answers a question and doesn't get the 2 or 3 votes they usually get in a day here (my experience), but instead gets 5 or more, that might lead to more motivation to invest the time for more answers</li>\n<li>getting faster answers might lead to those asking questions getting more involved, maybe even starting to answer. If a person asks a question and gets no answer or gets an answer months later, they often don't seem to come back </li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>As it is, I think the site is in quite a bad state :-/</p>\n\n<p>(* Looking at the <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/users?tab=Voters&amp;filter=month\">list of voters</a>, there's only 9 users who voted more than 10 times this month. I don't think that's a particularly high number.) </p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/435", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/601/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 439, "author": "anongoodnurse", "author_id": 169, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/169", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<blockquote>\n <p>...it is evident that the users want... to boost the reputation of available users, (...which) I think are excellent ideas. </p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>That we need more higher-rep users is clear. But they need to be higher-rep users because they give good answers, not because they give a lot of answers. Implied but necessary in this scenario is that they will have enough knowledge to then do some good moderating on the site as well. So, it's a question of a cultivating a committed base of knowledgeable users.</p>\n\n<p>There are a fair number of erroneous answers here with a positive score. Some are from the early days, but not all.</p>\n\n<p>As an example of why I can imagine this won't work - I think the comparison is fair - is the bounty system. I offered a bounty (one was, if I recall correctly, for 250 points) on three questions. The 250 point question was a good one, and one that could be answered relatively easily. Only one of the questions got a bounty awarded. If rep was a reward for answering, I imagine the response would have been better.</p>\n\n<p>In my opinion, what we need here is not necessarily more answers, but better questions. And for that, I can't think of a good solution.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 440, "author": "Atl LED", "author_id": 601, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/601", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Perhaps another aspect would be to have an \"<a href=\"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/107780/does-vox-populi-badge-require-that-all-the-40-voted-posts-are-not-deleted-by-end\">Vox Populi</a>\" weekend to see if we can get users to go through questions/answers and reach the 40 vote max. I'm imagining this in conjunction with the other ideas.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/438", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/64/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 445, "author": "kenorb", "author_id": 114, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/114", "pm_score": -1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I believe it should change as per how majority decided based on a new insight and main motto our <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/help/site-moderators\">help page</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>At Stack Exchange, we believe moderation starts with the community itself</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>and:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p><a href=\"http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/05/a-theory-of-moderation/\">Stack Overflow is run by you</a></p>\n</blockquote>\n" }, { "answer_id": 446, "author": "Joe W", "author_id": 38, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/38", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "<p>Looking at that question and I can see the top answer currently has 6 up votes and 3 down votes for a score of 3 and the other answer has 4 up votes and 2 down votes for a score of 2. I would say that the community hasn't really spoken on the issue since there are so few votes on this issue and most likely all the all the down votes came from people who up voted the other option so I would say only 10 people have cast a vote on the issue.</p>\n\n<p>Also it should remembered that when you have two answers within a single point score wise of each other a single person can come in, up vote one answer and down vote the other answer and the top answer has suddenly changed.</p>\n\n<p>Bottom line is that that there are not enough votes or activity on that question to say the community has taken a stance on the issue.</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>The questions are two close and have to few votes on it to make any sort of call</li>\n<li>The OP can accept any answer including the answer with a negative score so it doesn't really matter what the op accepts but rather what the community votes on.</li>\n<li>A single person shouldn't change the stance of the whole community without many of the members showing some sign of agreeing with the changes and having a question with such a low vote count is not community action.</li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>Bottom line (again) is that meta participation needs to higher in order for questions like that one to really be answered. </p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/444", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/99/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 450, "author": "Franck Dernoncourt", "author_id": 43, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/43", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "<p>You can add the link as a comment. The goal of Stack Exchange is to exchange knowledge, and if the link points to same question, it will certainly interest future readers while avoiding potential answerers from wasting their time writing some answer whose content is already present somewhere else.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 451, "author": "JohnP", "author_id": 64, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/64", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>If you have questions like this, often if you look on <a href=\"https://meta.stackexchange.com/\">the Meta site</a> for Stack Exchange, you will find they have been answered.</p>\n\n<p>In this case, answers from here can be posted on Quora with proper attribution, and vice versa, due to the type of licensing that both sites employ.</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/247756/can-i-copy-my-answer-in-quora-to-stack-exchange-sites-or-vice-versa\">Can I copy my answer in Quora to Stack Exchange sites or vice-versa?</a></p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/13976/who-owns-the-copyright-to-sofu-content\">Who owns the copyright to S[OFU] content?</a></p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/449", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/43/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 453, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>There are <a href=\"https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/163948\">severe constraints</a> on the questions/answers that can appear within the tour: short, no images, no complex formatting, two answers, an answer has a comment, has certain score, etc... The default unicorns/daisies example remains on many sites mostly because there are no eligible examples there yet. Some sites find that their expectations of answers are pretty much opposite of what the Tour expects.</p>\n\n<p>The <a href=\"http://data.stackexchange.com/health/query/92078/possible-about-questions\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">query for possible examples</a> comes up empty on Health, so the default example is here to stay for a while.</p>\n\n<p>(And no, it's not copied from Gardening &amp; Landscaping because unicorns are off-topic there.) </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 464, "author": "Atl LED", "author_id": 601, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/601", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I wrote a targeted question to address our unicorn problem:</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/3557/how-do-i-determine-a-target-time-frame-for-breastfeeding\">How do I determine a target time frame for breastfeeding?</a></p>\n\n<p><code>Len()</code> 395, no links no formatting. Even got two sources in to show researched. I don't think I can be the one to answer the question looking at the search quarry, so someone else needs to squeeze out an answer that meets the same guidelines.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/452", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/1717/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 462, "author": "Joe W", "author_id": 38, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/38", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I would say recommendation questions like that are bad as the recommendations can go out of date and no longer be a good one. </p>\n\n<p>Because in general recommendation questions are bad a tag should not be created for them because it give the false impression that they are allowed. </p>\n\n<p>It all boils down to the fact that a tag should not be created just because it can be. </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 463, "author": "Atl LED", "author_id": 601, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/601", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Agreeing with what @JoeW said, do we have any reason to think these questions are on topic to begin with? I thought such questions were discouraged across the SE platform.</p>\n\n<p>I think we'd need to make the argument that health has a special enough case to include them. Otherwise I don't want to make a tag for something that should always be deleted.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 592, "author": "Franck Dernoncourt", "author_id": 43, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/43", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I think that resource recommendation should be on topic (and that therefore there should be a tag for it):</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>Good resources don't disappear so quickly (and are most likely mirrored anyway).</li>\n<li>Quite a few Stack Exchange websites accept them, and it often leads to interesting answers.</li>\n</ul>\n" }, { "answer_id": 1287, "author": "Chris Rogers", "author_id": 7951, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/7951", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "<p>The question mentioned here was closed as it was opinion-based and is now deleted. But, for future use, for non opinion-based questions like this, which can exist (<a href=\"https://medicalsciences.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/reference-request\">there are some</a>) I feel <strong>reference-request</strong> may be better than resource-recommendation.</p>\n<p>A recommendation is opinion based but a request would be for something which is definitely reputable.</p>\n<p>Neither has been created as of yet, but if <a href=\"https://medicalsciences.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/resource-recommendation\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;resource-recommendation&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">resource-recommendation</a> is ever created, I feel it and <a href=\"https://medicalsciences.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/resource-request\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;resource-request&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">resource-request</a> should be synonyms of <a href=\"https://medicalsciences.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/reference-request\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;reference-request&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">reference-request</a></p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/461", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/-1/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 462, "author": "Joe W", "author_id": 38, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/38", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I would say recommendation questions like that are bad as the recommendations can go out of date and no longer be a good one. </p>\n\n<p>Because in general recommendation questions are bad a tag should not be created for them because it give the false impression that they are allowed. </p>\n\n<p>It all boils down to the fact that a tag should not be created just because it can be. </p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 463, "author": "Atl LED", "author_id": 601, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/601", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Agreeing with what @JoeW said, do we have any reason to think these questions are on topic to begin with? I thought such questions were discouraged across the SE platform.</p>\n\n<p>I think we'd need to make the argument that health has a special enough case to include them. Otherwise I don't want to make a tag for something that should always be deleted.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 592, "author": "Franck Dernoncourt", "author_id": 43, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/43", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I think that resource recommendation should be on topic (and that therefore there should be a tag for it):</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>Good resources don't disappear so quickly (and are most likely mirrored anyway).</li>\n<li>Quite a few Stack Exchange websites accept them, and it often leads to interesting answers.</li>\n</ul>\n" }, { "answer_id": 1287, "author": "Chris Rogers", "author_id": 7951, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/7951", "pm_score": 0, "selected": false, "text": "<p>The question mentioned here was closed as it was opinion-based and is now deleted. But, for future use, for non opinion-based questions like this, which can exist (<a href=\"https://medicalsciences.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/reference-request\">there are some</a>) I feel <strong>reference-request</strong> may be better than resource-recommendation.</p>\n<p>A recommendation is opinion based but a request would be for something which is definitely reputable.</p>\n<p>Neither has been created as of yet, but if <a href=\"https://medicalsciences.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/resource-recommendation\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;resource-recommendation&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">resource-recommendation</a> is ever created, I feel it and <a href=\"https://medicalsciences.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/resource-request\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;resource-request&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">resource-request</a> should be synonyms of <a href=\"https://medicalsciences.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/reference-request\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;reference-request&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">reference-request</a></p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/471", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/43/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 485, "author": "JohnP", "author_id": 64, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/64", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>On a few sites that I'm on, it's acceptable practice to discuss both questions and answers in chat, as it creates a more refined, on topic question and can clear up potential ambiguities or contradictions in answers.</p>\n\n<p>It's a more interesting question for health, as we do have a stricter requirement for backing up what you write as an answer.</p>\n\n<p>Unfortunately, because of the transitory nature, I don't think it can be enforced in chat, unless either a doctor/doctor equivalent or moderator sits in chat a majority of the time, which is not really a feasible solution. There is also no system for flagging chat messages, as the current flagging system is for offensive nature and is seen system wide.</p>\n\n<p>What could be done, however, is to change the description of the chat room to advise that medical answers in chat are strongly encouraged to have some sort of backup and to investigate/confirm any answers you get, and for other chat users to refute pseudo and \"bro\" science answers. If we can get that mindset embedded in the room and regular chat users, then we can at least vet to some extent the content that passes through.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 486, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>You should be able to talk about whatever you want in chat, as long as it's not being mean or disrespectful. It's just chat.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/484", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/169/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 493, "author": "Community", "author_id": -1, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/-1", "pm_score": 4, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I'll address the potential effect on the site. If SE is unable to find enough qualified users to moderate, the site will be shut down.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>What does this mean? If there's enough moderation for a public beta\n site to consistently remain free of spam, for flags to be cleared, and\n for our Be Nice policy to be upheld, your site will remain open.\n However, if community leaders drop off, flags sit without being\n addressed, and we can’t find any suitable volunteers to step forward,\n the site gets closed.</p>\n \n <p>_{from <a href=\"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/257614/graduation-site-closure-and-a-clearer-outlook-on-the-health-of-se-sites\">Graduation, site closure, and a clearer outlook on the health of SE sites</a>}</p>\n</blockquote>\n" }, { "answer_id": 494, "author": "JohnP", "author_id": 64, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/64", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Well, here is your \"they are still working it out\" answer. :)</p>\n\n<p>Just as most of the rest of us have Christmas, so do have the Community Moderators. Ana is the primary person that has been communicating with us during this process, and she is currently on vacation. There have been other CM's checking in and helping as needed (Which has not been much at all).</p>\n\n<p>They do intend on talking to some members of the community as potential replacements, I just do not know the timeframe for when that will occur.</p>\n\n<p>In the meantime, while what Mad Scientist says is true, currently we are not letting flags sit, we are free of spam and we are still Being Nice to each other. The site is not in any immediate danger of closing, at least as far as I am aware.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 497, "author": "michaelpri", "author_id": 26, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/26", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>As JohnP said, we are still trying to work this all out. Obviously, this was a very sudden change for the community, but we are trying our best to keep that community moving forward in a positive direction. Hopefully we'll be able find another user that will make a competent moderator. </p>\n\n<p>Now I'll answer your first question about why this sudden change wasn't announced publicly. We wanted to leave announcing that they won't be moderators here anymore up to Susan and anongoodnurse. They were and still are free to make a meta post, but they decided not to and we want to respect that decision. </p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/492", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/1830/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 501, "author": "Shog9", "author_id": 41, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/41", "pm_score": 3, "selected": false, "text": "<p>\"Primarily Opinion Based\" references something that... Actually doesn't show up all that often on Stack Exchange sites, but is something of a staple of most other forums and Q&amp;A sites. A visit to <a href=\"https://www.quora.com/topic/Health/top_stories\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Quora's Health topic</a> turns up a few examples:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-best-ways-to-lose-weight-8?share=1\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">What are the best ways to lose weight?</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-top-5-must-do-and-dont-do-for-depressed-people?share=1\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">What are the top 5 must do and don't do for depressed people?</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-female-habits-in-the-wash-room-that-men-dont-know-about?share=1\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">What are some female habits in the wash room that men don't know about?</a></li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>Checking <a href=\"https://www.quora.com/topic/Health/faq\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">the FAQ for that topic</a> quickly yields a few more:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https://www.quora.com/Where-do-I-get-advice-for-health-issues-online?share=1\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Where do I get advice for health issues online?</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-home-remedies-to-remain-healthy-and-fit?share=1\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">What are some home remedies to remain healthy and fit?</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-way-to-get-reliable-health-advice?share=1\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">What is the best way to get reliable health advice?</a></li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>There are some reasonable answers lurking within these questions, but a number of problems quickly become apparent:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>There can be no \"right\" answer to any of them.</strong> Plenty of questions have multiple correct answers, or answers that only apply in certain situations... But a question where <em>any</em> possible answer is likely as correct (or incorrect) as any other is another beast. This can be considered an extreme case of Too Broad; if answering a Too Broad question might require an entire textbook, then answering one of these questions might require an entire library: stacks, periodicals, microfilm copies of newspapers with letters to the editor from crazy hermits crediting their longevity to a daily diet of Sterno and talk radio...</li>\n<li><strong>There's no actual problem.</strong> Maybe there's a token nod to a general problem (lots of people <em>do</em> need to lose weight), but even that isn't required; the call is out for <em>responses</em> more than <em>solutions</em>. These could also be classified as Unclear, but often they <em>are</em> clear: they want responses and opinions, as many as possible. Which brings us to...</li>\n<li><strong>They attract a LOT of answers.</strong> Again, there's nothing wrong with multiple solutions to a problem, or multiple approaches to an explanation. But usually this peters out after a reasonably small quantity, resulting in a set of answers that can actually be read and <em>used</em> by the asker and future readers. Once you start seeing dozens or <em>hundreds</em> of answers, the chance that anyone is going to read them all is slim; voting becomes ineffective, and if there is anything of value it becomes lost in the noise. Spam and trolling grow and fester in the moist recesses...</li>\n</ul>\n\n<p>Oh... And both because of the broad appeal and low barrier to entry, these questions are often <em>incredibly</em> popular. That they <em>aren't</em> usually a problem here is a testament to the battles fought early on over their suitability for this Q&amp;A format; early threads on Stack Overflow often followed the same patterns illustrated by the questions above, and their downfall resulted in a widespread reluctance to see new sites suffer through the same growing pains. Every site now includes <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask\">a Don't Ask topic that explicitly warns about them</a>:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page.</p>\n \n <p>Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much.</p>\n \n <p>If your motivation for asking the question is “I would like to participate in a discussion about ______”, then you should not be asking here. However, if your motivation is “I would like others to explain ______ to me”, then you are probably OK. </p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>This topic also includes some handy checks (borrowed from MetaFilter) to aid in identification:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <ul>\n <li>every answer is equally valid: “What’s your favorite ______?”</li>\n <li>your answer is provided along with the question, and you expect more answers: “I use ______ for ______, what do you use?”</li>\n <li>there is no actual problem to be solved: “I’m curious if other people feel like I do.”</li>\n <li>you are asking an open-ended, hypothetical question: “What if ______ happened?”</li>\n <li>your question is just a rant in disguise: “______ sucks, am I right?”</li>\n </ul>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>If you never encounter a question that suffers from these problems, count yourself lucky - they're annoying, and often deceptively hard to fix compared to similar \"too broad\" or \"unclear\" questions. If you <em>think</em> you've encountered one, a quick test is to simply ask the author to clarify the problem he's trying to solve / highlight the bit he doesn't understand / explain where he's stuck. If there's a real question to be had, this'll flush it out...</p>\n\n<p>I'm also gonna call out an excellent answer on <a href=\"https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3480/is-is-this-foodstuff-harmful-harmful/3481#3481\">the sister site for Skeptics</a>, where Oddthinking lays out the problems with (and solutions to!) a related class of questions there.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 509, "author": "rumtscho", "author_id": 193, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/193", "pm_score": 3, "selected": true, "text": "<p>Because you're asking for guidelines, I'll try to write one which is easily applied to any question: </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>Imagine a continuum from \"Answer requires a human judgement based on the person's values and preferences\" to \"Science should be able to find an answer which is objectively true or false\". The closer to \"requires human judgment\", the more likely that it's POB. </p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>As an example for clearly opinion based: \"Which color is more beautiful, blue or yellow?\". Example for clearly not POB: \"What is the height of Mont Blanc over sea level?\". </p>\n\n<p>\"Has science already found out the answer\" is not important. What is important is the nature of question as it relates to matters of fact vs. matters of taste. </p>\n\n<p>Note that sometimes a question may look very objective to a confident idiot, but turn out to be entirely subjective. This usually comes from people who honestly assume that a cultural practice which happens to be universal to their society is universal to all humanity and predetermined by some natural law. \"Why are eggs only suitable for breakfast?\" would be such a question, containing the assumption that eggs are no good outside breakfast - a statement which might be presumed true by many people in the US, but obviously false. </p>\n\n<p>I would also go so far to suggest that \"there's no actual problem\" and \"they attract lots of answers\" from Shog9's answer are not <em>necessary conditions</em> for declaring a question to be POB. Sure, these sings turn up in lots of POB questions, but a question can be POB without having them. </p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>I'll also try to apply my logic to the two examples you mentioned: </p>\n\n<p>1) HIV infection through mosquitoes: clearly not POB. Even if nobody had found it out yet, it should be obvious that there is a clear \"yes\" or \"no\" answer which is knowable in principle. </p>\n\n<p>2) Big boned. That one's tough. If the question is about relation of bone size to body size, then certainly not POB. But \"big boned\" is a set term in our society which has very complicated connotations. If the asker actually wanted to understand if \"I am big boned\" can be true or is always a lie, that depends on a human's judgement of what the term is actually supposed to mean, how relevant its literal, physiological meaning is to the conveyed meaning, and what constitutes a lie. So it's not clear cut. I would tend to say it should be open, but the OP should be advised in comments that he will only get physiologically relevant answers, and that they may not contain the information crucial to understanding the term's usage in nonmedical contexts. </p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/500", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/169/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 517, "author": "Joe W", "author_id": 38, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/38", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>Researching a question before you post it is a very good idea. However trying to measure the amount of research that was put into a question from reading the post can be impossible depending on the amount of information found. If it is a question about something where there is not a lot of information available, either outside of certain areas or at all, a person can spend a significant amount of time and find no information. </p>\n\n<p>If you are breaking down what you are asking I would have some concerns about what you are looking for.</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li>If the person doing the research spent some time ( at least a few hours ) trying to find the information but was unable to find any what do they post? Do they just describe how they tried to find the information?</li>\n<li>Guidelines for research would most likely need to be different depending on the question. A question about the common cold should have more information from research than a question about a rare or new disease.</li>\n<li>A close reason for lack of research can be hard to do as determining what is enough research is primarily opinion based. This close reason has been removed from other sites because it was being abused to close questions so I don't see it being added again. </li>\n</ol>\n" }, { "answer_id": 523, "author": "Atl LED", "author_id": 601, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/601", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I couldn't decide if I wanted to put this in as an edit or an answer, but after going through several questions tonight, I thought I'd throw it up here.</p>\n\n<p>We only have 1 of our 3 canned off topic options occupied right now. I propose the following off topic VTC as a middle ground:</p>\n\n<p>\"This question is off topic because it concerns an unsourced or unsubstantiated position about health. To be considered for reopening, please provide a reference that clearly states your position.\"</p>\n\n<p>I think that this will only solve half the problem, but at least it's the more annoying half. You will still find people unable to find the 1st Google hit that covers their questions (like the dietary recommendations of the Kidney Foundation for dialysis pts).</p>\n\n<h2>Edits:</h2>\n\n<p>In response to @JohnP mentioning this <a href=\"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/86043/introduce-a-general-reference-close-reason\">meta question</a>, and the logic tree displayed in the answer, I thought I would propose a different logic tree for us:</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/aUzBY.png\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/aUzBY.png\" alt=\"Flow Diagram for closing based on lack of research\"></a></p>\n\n<p>Again I think this is different from the close for general reference answers. I think our problem is users not actually trying to answer the question themselves.</p>\n\n<p>For examples regarding \"Are the search terms unclear,\" I think our <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/4360/weight-on-front-or-back-of-feet\">current bounty question</a> is a great example. That question would require knowledge of words I would not expect the public to know (stance instead of standing, biomechanics, and pathomechanics). Using the terms from within the question you can tell that it would be very difficult to get a good answer to the question.</p>\n\n<p>However, there are plenty of questions, the <a href=\"https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/epidemic-and-outbreak-of-disease\">one @JohnP pointed to</a> for example, where even just DDG-ing (or Google I tried both) the question exactly as written provides an answer on the first hit or page of results.</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 532, "author": "Cascabel", "author_id": 631, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/631", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I don't think that strict rules and close voting are a good way to enforce research effort. My big suggestions would be:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Close conspiracy theory questions.</strong> Probably add a custom reason for this; it's common enough.</li>\n<li><strong>Close general reference questions.</strong> Probably add a custom reason for this too.</li>\n<li><strong>Close everything else that's known bad.</strong> \"Too broad\" and \"unclear what you're asking\" cover an awful lot of ground.</li>\n<li><strong>Don't close otherwise good questions, regardless of research effort.</strong> Downvoting and <em>asking</em> for clarification and/or research is fine though!</li>\n</ul>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>I think the most important question to ask yourself when evaluating a question with respect to research effort is:</p>\n\n<p><strong>Would the OP still be asking the question if they'd done a little research?</strong></p>\n\n<p>If no, then it is indeed a bad question. I think the best thing to do in that case is downvote (after all, the site does explicitly provide this as a reason to downvote questions). If there are serious problems remaining (after dealing with conspiracy theory and general reference questions), that's where you can focus additional efforts.</p>\n\n<p>If yes, then the question should be regarded as fine in terms of research effort, whether or not the OP actually has explicitly proved that they did the research. (Note that it could still be too broad, too unclear, and so on - all that is separate.) If the question can't easily be answered by non-expert research, then including a proof of that in the question doesn't actually make the question better.</p>\n\n<p>The point here is to consider the merits of the actual question being asked, not just the degree to which the OP has attempted to answer it. If the question is \"good\", the site should be happy to have it, and if it's \"bad\", the site should be happy to get rid of it, all regardless of the amount of research demonstrated in the question.</p>\n\n<p>I get the impression that you're trying to use research effort as a proxy for making those decisions about more specific bad categories, i.e. if the question goes away after asking for research, it must have been bad. But I think it's counterproductive to impose additional burden on <em>good</em> questions in order to weed out the bad ones.</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>To take a step back, I see that you're worried about attracting experts. That's a legitimate concern! And I agree, a good way to do that is to have really interesting questions!</p>\n\n<p>However, I think there are a few disconnects between that and a \"close without research effort\" policy:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li><p>Lack of research effort isn't exactly the same as not interesting. Making strict rules here is a good way to throw away both bad and good questions, not just bad ones.</p></li>\n<li><p>Making it take more work to ask questions, in general, discourages people from asking questions - the opposite of your goal.</p></li>\n<li><p>Getting rid of bad questions increases the <em>fraction</em> of good questions, not the <em>number</em> of good questions. Even if you could come up with a rule that only got rid of bad questions, you still wouldn't really be making progress. (If you were taking an unmanageable 100 questions/day and pruning it to 50 good questions/day, sure. If the site gets there, revisit this! But right now the site has 7 questions/day.)</p></li>\n</ul>\n" }, { "answer_id": 537, "author": "ArtOfCode", "author_id": 2010, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/2010", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<h3>TL;DR: Don't close questions because they don't show research effort; that's the wrong tool.</h3>\n\n<p>I come from far far away on the Stack Exchange network, and I've only just come across this. However, there's something going on here which I need to point out.</p>\n\n<p>Scroll back up to the question. Hover over the downvote button. Read the tooltip. Go on, see for yourself. It says this:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p><strong>This question does not show any research effort</strong>; it is unclear or not useful</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Emphasis mine, and very deliberate.</p>\n\n<p><strong>Lack of research, by itself, is not a reason to close a question.</strong> It <em>is</em> okay to close a question if the answer could be found as the top result of an obvious Google search - that's just lazy and shouldn't be around here. But research is somewhat subjective: someone could have done their own research, have nothing to show for it, and not be easily able to demonstrate it.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>...a minimum level of research, and an attempt to answer your own question.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Why is this community here, if not to answer questions? OK, it's fair to require <em>minimal</em> effort to solve your own problem - a Google search or two is not a difficult task. But if someone's tried that, it's <em>unfair</em> to close their question because you think they haven't. Downvote it, if you must, but don't close it.</p>\n\n<p>On the other hand, you have the downvote button. It's there for <em>exactly</em> cases like this: questions that you don't think are very high-quality, are unlikely to help anyone else, etc etc. That's the <em>correct</em> tool for this job.</p>\n\n<p><strong>See also: <a href=\"https://gaming.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5498/a-close-vote-is-not-a-super-downvote-please-dont-use-it-as-one\">A Close Vote is not a Super-Downvote. Please don't use it as one.</a></strong></p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 963, "author": "Chris Rogers", "author_id": 7951, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/7951", "pm_score": 1, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I like the logic tree in <a href=\"https://medicalsciences.meta.stackexchange.com/a/523\">@AtlLED’s answer</a> and I think that we all need to follow some sort of method to enforce prior research when asking questions.</p>\n\n<p>I am also an active member of Psychology.SE where, being also a <strong>science-based site</strong>, they actively insist on prior research. Now we have rebranded to <strong>Medical Sciences</strong> I think we need to follow suit.</p>\n\n<p>In <a href=\"https://medicalsciences.meta.stackexchange.com/a/878\">my answer in meta to standard comments</a> I spoke of an off-topic close reason for this purpose which Psychology.SE use, which has subsequently been modified within the answer.</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n <p>This question is not framed in the sciences of health. It is based on assumptions which are not made explicit, are not well-motivated (e.g., referenced), or are not held to be true within any of the research fields on-topic here. Please edit your question to provide more information on… (your research, why you are asking this question, what problems are you having understanding your research…)</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Motivation and effort needs to be shown that the OP has tried to research their question. Answers can take a lot of time and effort in themselves, especially with complex subjects requiring a lot of referencing (which is also required here). Why should an anyone answer a question posed which shows no prior effort from the OP?</p>\n\n<p>If no prior research was attempted, it can often be evident when a quick Google search immediately provides an answer. If you attempted to research but can't find anything, then provide an idea on what you searched for. We are all helpful here and will provide assistance where needed.</p>\n\n<p>We are not looking for references for literally everything. Anything commonly known such as \"a common cold is primarily evident with a runny nose\" doesn't need referencing, but anything not as well known does. Especially when someone says \"I read that...\". What did you read? How can we also read it? (What are the details?)</p>\n\n<p>Adding at least one link to an article or book on the subject not only provides evidence of prior research, but also gives any potential answerer an idea on what the OP has already read in order for them to not repeat that and concentrate on what is not known or understood.</p>\n\n<p>I would suggest we create the close reason I mentioned for us to use and maybe in the meantime we use the \"other\" close reason and put the reason in there.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/515", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/601/" ]

[ { "answer_id": 526, "author": "Franck Dernoncourt", "author_id": 43, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/43", "pm_score": 2, "selected": false, "text": "<p>I'll address the reputation bias: the reputation does not always matter. All my answers but one got deleted by an admin for being quote only (even though the quotes were clearly answering the questions and there were no need to comment, as the number of upvotes testified). I had a high reputation when that happened. Be happy your answers didn't get deleted (deletion of comments also happens <a href=\"https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/q/516/43\">way too often and too fast</a> on this Stack Exchange website).</p>\n" }, { "answer_id": 528, "author": "Lucky", "author_id": 613, "author_profile": "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/613", "pm_score": 2, "selected": true, "text": "<p>Your answer did contain plenty of blockquotes, but each and every one of them was commented on in your own words. So I disagree with the comment you got. (Irrelevant here, but I actually quite like your answer, and your style where you gave some background information first - it sometimes necessary and very helpful).</p>\n\n<p>I don' think that you need to compare your answer to others (although I understand that your aim was to test for possible bias) - each answer should be assessed on its own merit. \nAs far as bias goes the important thing to remember is that behind every user on SE is a human being, and our decisions/opinions tend to be biased sometimes. Voting, and especially comments are not based on a 100% objective, precise criteria. Some directions exist in meta and the help centre, but they are guidelines, subject to interpretation. Some users stick to those firmly, some loosely. In the end, the comment you received was just one person's opinion.</p>\n\n<p>If it helps, I'll give you a personal example: I recently got a comment on a piece of my answer that wasn't supported by references. Although I did agree that I should have omitted that little bit I had no references for (and edited the answer to take that part out) I did object to the manner in which the comment was made, since it was overly harsh. On another answer, I got a non-constructive comment about having too many references(!) from the very same user. So, sometimes, not only do different people have different criteria, but the same person can have fluctuating standards. </p>\n\n<p>In the end, I wouldn't have removed my answer based on one comment if I were you. There are better options:</p>\n\n<ol>\n<li><p>Ignore it (if you think it's rubbish)</p></li>\n<li><p>Write a reply to defend/explain your stance if a reasonable question has been raised</p></li>\n<li><p>Edit your answer if you agree with the comment, and think that this would improve the quality of your answer.</p></li>\n<li><p>Flag it for mods to intervene, if you think that SE policies have been violated. </p></li>\n</ol>\n\n<p>Writing about it on meta was also a good option, since the comment you received was no way to greet a new user. But I would consider putting that answer back, so it can get some upvotes.</p>\n" } ]

[ "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/525", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com", "https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/users/2803/" ]