Quality of clinical forum discussions

Re: Quality of clinical forum discussions

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 10:26:27 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]1. On both the existing and the new websites, when you reply to a post, there are buttons marked 'quote this post' and 'quote / review entire thread'. If you want to reply more than one point in the thread, use the latter of these buttons and then quote and respond to each of the points individually WITHIN YOUR SINGLE REPLY. In other words, don't create a new post for each point you are replying to, instead do it all within one post.[/quote]

That is fine when using a laptop, but on a phone or tablet it is a pain in the arse to use that function. Particularly if you are trying to edit down the quote (as I have done here for neatness). It would really only be then that I would post multiple replies. I also find the 'edit' button difficult to access using thumbs on a small phone screen.[/quote]

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm reviewing how it works on a tablet. On a mobile phone, at some stage we'll have a completely different display. But I'm haemorrhaging cash on development at the moment, so it is a little way off yet.

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]Suggestion - have you looked at whether the forum can auto merge sequential posts by the same poster? I have a forum (nothing to do with vets) and we have it set up in that way. It means someone using a mobile device or less familiar with the features of the forum can post as they like, and have it appear as a single post. Doesn't work if someone replies quickly.[/quote]

I wonder whether your last sentence might rule it out, but I'll look into it.

[quote user="Robin Grimmer"]Also, keep it brief! When someone writes an essay I usually can't be bothered reading it all![/quote]

Was that directed at my recent essays?

You're right of course. But then there are times when an essay is needed (especially with clinical cases). Good advice may be to use the same technique people use when writing press releases. Start your cilnical post with a one or two sentence summary of the case, perhaps in bold, and then describe in full. Allows the reader to see at a glance whether it's something they know about without having to read the whole thing.

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]May be easier just to make it the norm that people have their date of graduation in their profile. [/quote]

Yes, good idea. Just not sure whether I have the money to do it right at the moment. I'll discuss with techies and see.

Re: Quality of clinical forum discussions

Robin Grimmer — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 09:42:48 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Dennison"]

[quote user="Robin Grimmer"]Also, keep it brief! When someone writes an essay I usually can't be bothered reading it all![/quote]

I know I can be guilty of this, but if it's a complicated case, the OP kind of needs to be long to get all the details in, no?

[/quote]

True. That's fair enough re case discussions, but I was thinking more about non clinical and political posts

Re: Quality of clinical forum discussions

Anthony Dennison — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 09:09:45 GMT

[quote user="Robin Grimmer"]Also, keep it brief! When someone writes an essay I usually can't be bothered reading it all![/quote]

I know I can be guilty of this, but if it's a complicated case, the OP kind of needs to be long to get all the details in, no?

Re: Quality of clinical forum discussions

J G Wray — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 23:46:41 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

[quote user="ruths"]None of the above -)) Pikey

[/quote]

Good choice. I originally wrote "thieving pikey scum" and then changed it to gypsy.

[/quote] Round here we have an expression - they are the "Do as you likeys" We have members of staff who have history from a young age with them, who dislike them so much they become fire breathing Rottweilers when they -the do as you likeys- cross our threshold , demanding cash payment up front even before consultation or treatment. It's "awesome" to use young people vernacular and, well, on balance, I don't discourage the behaviour, because it is always icily polite- if fire breathing and ice can mix

Re: Quality of clinical forum discussions

ruths — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 17:27:07 GMT

Ahem -))

Re: Quality of clinical forum discussions

Martin Atkinson — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 17:17:59 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]I originally wrote "thieving pikey scum" and then changed it to gypsy.[/quote]Perhaps 'Travellers' would be a better word if you wanted to be PC Mike. It implies thieving pikey scum without actually saying it. To call them Gypsies is an insult to genuine Gypsies who are too busy making pegs to sell and baking hedgehogs in clay to eat to go thieving. Damn was that racist or just lifestyle stereotyping?

On which note: of my clients spoiled his national census form by writing next to 'Traveller' in the ethnic group section: "This is a lifestyle choice not ethnicity". And too true.

Re: Quality of clinical forum discussions

Michael Woodhouse — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 17:08:13 GMT

[quote user="ruths"]None of the above -)) Pikey

[/quote]

Good choice. I originally wrote "thieving pikey scum" and then changed it to gypsy.

Re: Quality of clinical forum discussions

ruths — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 16:51:55 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"] To that, I would like to find a way of badging new grads (should be doable, but complicated by the transient nature of the badge and therefore the need for members to remove it when they are no longer a new grad).[/quote]

May be easier just to make it the norm that people have their date of graduation in their profile. And encourage as correct behaviour the habit of checking someone's date of graduation before replying, if they are a poster you haven't seen before, and especially if you are going to be a little critical. I've always done that, but too often found that the information is not in the profile.

[/quote] Why don't we be a bit more egalitarian and great everyone with the same respect? The suicides that have been close to me have been students, brand new grads, a couple of years out and two academics.. People have the same need to be treated courteously whatever stage of their career they are at. We have a shared humanity.

Re: Quality of clinical forum discussions

ruths — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 16:49:50 GMT

None of the above -)) Pikey

Re: Quality of clinical forum discussions

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 16:36:32 GMT

Re: Quality of clinical forum discussions

Robin Grimmer — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 15:38:43 GMT

Also, keep it brief! When someone writes an essay I usually can't be bothered reading it all!

Re: Quality of clinical forum discussions

J G Wray — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 15:33:31 GMT

[quote user="Sarah McGurk"]"Left-wing OOH Corporate mod-vet"[/quote]

Not bad, not bad at all.

Re: Quality of clinical forum discussions

Sarah McGurk — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:03:54 GMT

Thanks Arlo. I am very pleased to see you addressing this issue. I am also pleased to see you opening up the discussion to the members before making any changes. It is very sad that new members who might benefit from discussion are being put off. I'm only sorry that I wasn't available to come to this thread sooner to participate more.

[quote user="J G Wray"]

[quote user="ruths"]It would be good to know that this forum doesn't tolerate people using derogatory words in their descriptions of people... [/quote]

Quiz:

Which words are derogatory?

"Corporate-vet"[/quote]

"Left-wing OOH Corporate mod-vet"

Surely the ultimate insult?

Re: Quality of clinical forum discussions

Michael Woodhouse — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 13:09:13 GMT

Suggestion - have you looked at whether the forum can auto merge sequential posts by the same poster? I have a forum (nothing to do with vets) and we have it set up in that way. It means someone using a mobile device or less familiar with the features of the forum can post as they like, and have it appear as a single post. Doesn't work if someone replies quickly.

Re: Quality of clinical forum discussions

J G Wray — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 13:05:27 GMT

[quote user="ruths"]It would be good to know that this forum doesn't tolerate people using derogatory words in their descriptions of people... [/quote]

Quiz:

Which words are derogatory?

"Chippy"

"Nice"

"Sweet"

"Welsh"

"Yorkie" as in "Ye ken allus tella Yorkshireman, its just ye canna tellem much"

"Corporate-vet"

"UKIP-supporter"

"Neighbouring-practice"

"GPVet"

"Successful"

"Profit"

"Selling"

Any others?

Re: Quality of clinical forum discussions

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 12:48:44 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]Maybe there is a strong case for being less aggressive and judgemental of other forum users but if you deprive the forum of the banter and humour it will be no better than any other forum and just plain boring.[/quote]

This is important. I agree with you Martin. I'm not about to stop people cracking risque jokes. I'd sooner chop my own head off.

Re: Quality of clinical forum discussions

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 12:39:26 GMT

I think that I've covered the three most important things. Tell me if you think I've missed something.

There are a couple of other points to make:

1. People have mentioned how incredibly valuable they've found the specialist input on this site. But at the same time, I've heard people remark that they've sometimes been surprised at their continued participation in the face of sometimes dogmatic, overly-critical posts. Of course there is sometimes a tension between those with advanced qualifications working in referral practice and general practitioners. But GPs, don't bite the hand that feeds you. By which I mean that if you are unfriendly or disrespectful of someone's advanced qualifications or experience, they'll bugger off and you'll lose the often incredibly valuable stuff they share. Plus I'll get bloody annoyed because invariably I've put a lot of time and effort into persuading them to come and participate in the first place. Bear this in mind and if you feel it necessary, bite your tongue for the greater good.

This is really just a part of the 'showing professional courtesy' rule I posted above, so I hope if we can get that properly cracked, it'll be a non-issue. Again, it doesn't mean you cannot disagree with a specialist. Just accord them the same professional courtesy as you would anyone else.

2. Quality of case discussions. As in any forum which has been around a while, some subjects come up again and again. On the new site, I would encourage everyone to make better use of the much improved search function.

But in addition, it will significantly strengthen my arm in persuading experts to come and do things like 'Case of The Month' if we can get the 'professional courtesy' thing sorted.

3. Oh, and one last clinical forum rule: Where possible, try and qualify any clinical advice you give, for example by giving a reference to a paper or by stating your experience ("I saw one case like that in 1942", or I read this paper (linked) and it's been backed up by my experience of seeing 30 cases last week.

I think that is me done for the moment so I shall stop turbo posting myself.

I'm really pleased we had this discussion, because it ties in with the launch of the new site. I am hugely optimistic that the combination of the new technology and the greater understanding we all now have will take this community in a very positive direction.

Re: Quality of clinical forum discussions

Martin Atkinson — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 12:27:52 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

[quote user="ruths"] I'll be waiting for the 'it's political correctness gorn maaad' comments -)) Arlo, you might also want to look at what constitutes 'hate speech' too. It would be good to know that this forum doesn't tolerate people using derogatory words in their descriptions of people they hate.[/quote]

Don't even go there. We are currently plagued by gypsies on their way to Appleby horse fair.

Making a mess of the village greens, crime shoots up for these two weeks.

There are no words that sum up my dislike of them strongly enough.

[/quote]

You're lucky, we have a camp nearby so we have them all the time.

Ruths, I don't think there is a single person on here who uses hate language in anything other than humorous way or one that is not accepted in colloquial speech. I am not prejudiced against anyone, just their behaviour if it unacceptable judged by normal values. Don't forget that all humour is based on race, religion, sex and other peoples misfortunes. You may be in danger of being over-sensitive rather than politically correct.

Maybe there is a strong case for being less aggressive and judgemental of other forum users but if you deprive the forum of the banter and humour it will be no better than any other forum and just plain boring.

Re: Quality of clinical forum discussions

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 12:01:04 GMT

Issue #3 Going off topic

Going off-topic is a good and a bad thing. But in clinical discussions, it risks detracting from the case under discussion.

What am I going to do?

This was a difficult one, because some really interesting discussions have come out of 'off-topic' posts, and I don't want to stop that.

So (and I am aware that I am repeating something I posted earlier, thereby breaking rule #2), I have commissioned the techies to add a new feature to the forums which will add a button to each forum post marked 'Tangent'.

Press the 'Tangent' button, and it will create a new thread starting with a duplicate of the post on which you clicked 'Tangent'. You will be asked to specify a new thread title, and add your post.

After pressing submit, a link to your tangential thread will be added to the post you clicked 'tangent' on, so people reading the original thread will be able to see how the discussion has diverted into other areas.

This, I think, should solve the problem and really add a whole new dimension. I'm very excited about it.

It may not be implemented in time for the new website (I am waiting to hear), so in the meantime, I'd just say: try and stay on topic, particularly in the clinical forums.

Re: Quality of clinical forum discussions

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 11:35:34 GMT

Next Issue. Again, primarily for the clinical forums:

Turbo posting / Banging on

Turbo-posting is defined as one person posting numerous times in the same thread, often sequentially (i.e. without posts coming from other people in the meantime).

This has the affect of appearing to drown out posts from other members and it may discourage others from participating. Obviously, in a general forum discussion, multiple posts are part of the discussion / banter, and that is fine. But we need to be more self-disciplined in clinical discussions.

There are two solutions to this:

1. On both the existing and the new websites, when you reply to a post, there are buttons marked 'quote this post' and 'quote / review entire thread'. If you want to reply more than one point in the thread, use the latter of these buttons and then quote and respond to each of the points individually WITHIN YOUR SINGLE REPLY. In other words, don't create a new post for each point you are replying to, instead do it all within one post.

2. Be self-disciplined about the volume of posts you make in a single clinical thread. Avoid posting stuff that doesn't add something substantively new and important.

Banging on is repeating substantially the same point, either within the same thread, or elsewhere in the forum.

Many users of this site now visit regularly and read threads across multiple forums. Respect that fact, and don't be overly repetitive, or people will think: 'Oh god, not that old chestnut again'. That's not to say that repetition is not perfectly valid on occasion, particularly when directly relevant to an individual case, just don't overdo it. As a rule, make your point once, or even twice. Beyond that, if you think a particular person may not have seen your point, send them a private message instead.

What am I going to do:

New forum rules:

Posting multiple times within a single discussion thread, especially sequentially or when not replying to a question put to you, can have the effect of drowning out contributions from other users. So be self-disciplined about the quantity of posts you make to a thread. Make each one count. Allow others to speak. To reduce the number of posts you might need to make, use the 'Review entire thread' button when replying and quote/reply to multiple posts/comments within a single reply.
Repetition. Respect the fact that many readers will have read your posts either within the thread or in other forums with vetsurgeon.org. Try not to repeat substantially the same point unnecessarily.

Re: Quality of clinical forum discussions

Michael Woodhouse — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 11:14:16 GMT

Don't even go there. We are currently plagued by gypsies on their way to Appleby horse fair.

Making a mess of the village greens, crime shoots up for these two weeks.

There are no words that sum up my dislike of them strongly enough.

Re: Quality of clinical forum discussions

Luca Poddighe — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 11:09:38 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

Posts in this forum MUST show professional respect and courtesy for your colleagues. This means three things: a) above all, think first how you can add something positive to the discussion, b) recognise that you will not be in possession of all the facts surrounding the case and don't rush to criticise b) make sure your post does not seem overly judgemental c) consider including something to demonstrate that you recognise your own weakness i.e. that you may be wrong or that it is only an opinion.

[/quote]

Agree on everything, beware there is a typo "b)" shows twice...

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]2. I am going to see what I can do to make the reporting button more visible, and rename it: 'Submit for arbitration', or 'Submit for moderation' (any preference???). I want anyone and everyone to feel comfortable highlighting a post to me that they think is inappropriate. I will then tell them if I think they are being oversensitive, or talk to the poster.[/quote]

I would prefer submit for moderation...

Re: Quality of clinical forum discussions

Martin Atkinson — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 10:54:15 GMT

[quote user="P McM"]

I have been a member of the forum since before graduation but have never posted before. Moaning about the standard of new grads seems to be a particular hobby of certain individuals here and I have absolutely no interest in throwing myself to the lions with any of my silly questions. Don't get me wrong, I am as thick-skinned as any of you and I became a competent and confident vet very quickly after graduation. BUT, like many recent grads, I am belittled and mistrusted and put down by clients in a hundred tiny ways every day and I don't want to spend more time on this forum being subjected to your "tough-love" , thanks anyway.

So. I will continue to come here, read every single post in every single forum and take on board every single tip, trick and piece of genius 'can't be learned in books' piece advice you all dispense so generously, but I won't ever add my own little gems and I won't ever make any attempt to give back because I know my opinion isn't valued by a minority of posters. The toxic tirades against young vets I have read here have turned me into a bloody parasite!

[/quote]P McM, I find it rather ironic that you can come on here with such robust criticism of the forum yet say you won't contribute to the arguments/discussions for fear of being belittled.

As a recent graduate you will have invaluable knowledge we can all share don't confuse knowledge with experience. I don't believe that anyone has ever moaned about the standard of new graduates, more the culture or fear of litigation, disciplinary action and over-reliance on technology that seems to have been indoctrinated into them which is the fault of the system not the individual. Furthermore, I don't recall anyone ever belittling any seemingly 'silly' questions, indeed there is no such thing as a silly question, and if there is I'm often the first to ask them even after 40 years of experience.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Otherwise you are depriving yourself and us of a valuable resource.

Re: Quality of clinical forum discussions

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 10:33:17 GMT

Arlo

Hear hear.

Wynne

Re: Quality of clinical forum discussions

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 10:19:52 GMT

So ... summarising the main issues, I'll kick off with ....

1. Posts that cause offence.

I hear both sides of the argument: on the one hand that people should be able to take criticism, and if they can't, they shouldn't use a forum. Call a spade a spade; that kind of thing. On the other hand, I've heard both in this thread and elsewhere that a significant number of people do NOT use this forum either because they have had their fingers burned, or because they've seen others getting their fingers burned.

I think there are some fundamental points:

a) I come down firmly and unashamedly on the side of people whose posts demonstrate good manners, tact, kindness, generousity of spirit. To be clear, that DOES NOT mean that you can't ever tell someone you think they are wrong. On the contrary. But the simple fact is that the written word is limited because you cannot soften your words with the normal visual clues that we use in face-to-face conversation. Smileys are not enough. We all need to compensate for that deficiency by adding words to soften what we say. In some cases, it is just the difference between saying 'You're wrong' and 'I think you're wrong'. There is a world of difference. In short, blunt language is not usually appropriate for a professional forum of this sort.

b) Nobody wants the place to become a wasteland of blandness, and there is a place for robust discussion. But when you bluntly criticise someone's professional approach/decision, it's potentially the biggest insult you can heap upon them. You're judging something at the heart of their existence. So at this stage, I am asking everyone to take particular care with clinical discussions. In that regard, I sense that some read posts thinking 'what can I pick holes in?'. We need to get away from this and for everyone to start with the thought: 'How can I add something constructive'.

c) It is not a realistic objective to try and create a forum in which nobody is ever offended. A post of mine recently hurt someone without that being my intent (and until I was told, I was completely ignorant of it). And actually, feeling 'offended' is a necessary and important part of life's rich pattern. I know my own life would be very diminished if I wasn't furiously, eye-poppingly offended from time to time. So it is important to keep this in context. I am talking about a general principle here; a direction of travel.

In summary, I'd like us all to take pride in this community being principally a welcoming, collegiate and valuable resource where things occasionally get heated, rather than the other way around.

What am I going to do?

1. Proposed new rule for CLINICAL forums (trying to distil all this into one sentence) displayed more visibly at the point of posting.

Posts in this forum MUST show professional respect and courtesy for your colleagues. This means three things: a) above all, think first how you can add something positive to the discussion, b) recognise that you will not be in possession of all the facts surrounding the case and don't rush to criticise c) make sure your post does not seem overly judgemental d) consider including something to demonstrate that you recognise your own weakness i.e. that you may be wrong or that it is only an opinion.

2. I am going to see what I can do to make the reporting button more visible, and rename it: 'Submit for arbitration', or 'Submit for moderation' (any preference???). I want anyone and everyone to feel comfortable highlighting a post to me that they think is inappropriate. I will then tell them if I think they are being oversensitive, or talk to the poster.

3. I'm not sure I've got the badging system quite right (Anthony, don't say anything; I've heard you already!). I think I have overcooked it and we probably just need three categories: Forum Newbie (less than 50 posts). Forum Regular (50-1000 posts) and Forum Pro (1000 posts and more). In addition, we have badges for academic qualifications / Industry and Commerce / Students. To that, I would like to find a way of badging new grads (should be doable, but complicated by the transient nature of the badge and therefore the need for members to remove it when they are no longer a new grad).

4. As I say, I am working on a better quality scoring system which will highlight people who post content which is voted for by members as being good quality.