How to Nominate "Expert" Members? Need your help!
A suggestion has come to the Moderator team that we signify some members as "experts"/ "mentors" on the boards in certain specific topics in which those members have great knowledge and provide very helpful advice on a consistent basis.
The goal of elevating these certain important members would be to show "newbies" that those members opinions/advice/posts are valued among our other members, and should be strongly taken into account. Having an "expert member" weigh in on their questions will show that member (as well as other future members who may have similar questions/situation) that the response is likely a very good response and one that should be strongly considered.
So, we are wondering what you think the best method of identifying who these members would be, in order to not make our members feel as though we are playing "favorites" or weighing one member's importance against any others. We do not want this to be a popularity contest, either. Should this be a nomination process based on other members' suggestions? Should it be based on number of (helpful) posts? Should members nominate themselves as experts, and if so, how do we determine that they are in fact an "expert"?
We'd love any and all thoughts, suggestions, and advice on this idea we are considering. Do you think it could be helpful to have these types of members in our community? They're already here, helping our community day in and day out -- shouldn't we acknowledge them and give their opinions/advice weight?
Comments
-
Well the two women I can think of are VoraciousReader and BarredOwl (obviously).
I think you should have a small icon under the posts field on the right side designating they are a superuser. -
I've only been on here a short while, but there are some whom I already would say are experts or at the least very knowledgeable, and the information that they have taken the time to gather and share have been extremely valuable.
Perhaps members submitting names for nominations. Someone like me may not know who all of the nominees are, but I'm sure in my short time I've probably come across many of them. Maybe something then under their screen name, some word that says they are a trusted source, or maybe just use the words, trusted source, so when new members come on they can easily identify them.
My 2 cents
-
I think TMwoman ...Mellisa Dallas .. MinusTwo thes are just a few I think know a lot and willing to reach out. Now whether they want to do it is another thing. Lol!I know there are many more women just can't think of them right now. Some are really good at talking to members on this board. I wish I had that in me to jump in with all fours and correspond with these women.
-
I think TMwoman ...Mellisa Dallas .. MinusTwo thes are just a few I think know a lot and willing to reach out. Now whether they want to do it is another thing. Lol!I know there are many more women just can't think of them right now. Some are really good at talking to members on this board. I wish I had that in me to jump in with all fours and correspond with these women.
-
Well, I can certainly think of at least one member who posts a lot regarding lx. vis a vis mx that's missing from the list. I also see some that I wouldn't add to the list. I think the designation of some would be a slam dunk for such a list and others might be more subjective. I know the likelihood of getting 100% agreement is slim.
Has anyone explored any issues of liability or implied responsibility that might be associated with such a designation? Perhaps that question should be explored before any further discussion. There's probably something in the terms of use that touches on that but might need to be strengthened if this idea is carried out.
-
I think they should have to show involvement in the broader breast cancer community, like advocacy work, attendance at medical conferences, a position in a reputable non-profit org, or regular volunteer work that can be varfied easily or by submitting a letter of recommendation, as well as being a regular poster.
People may read a lot, but in order to be an expert, you have to also be unbiased, be able to interpret what you are reading, and have real life exposure to experiences other than your own. Aswell as respected people who can varify you are an expert.
-
Hmm. I get the idea of wanting to help newbies learn who likely knows what they are talking about, but I don't see how it can be done. Any kind of voting could easily become a popularity contest, and a well-informed member who posts but seldom would not end up with many votes even though she/he may be very knowledgeable. And I think having to check boxes ("Was this helpful?") would disrupt the conversation for me at least. Plus there are bound to be hurt feelings, and that would be harmful to our whole community, in my opinion.
As far as requiring broader work in the bc community, that might be helpful, but there are members who (for work, family, health or other reasons) do not do this, but do have good minds and make helpful comments. On the other hand, I have met people in the wider bc community who were ignorant of important facts (a particular nurse who led a support group comes to mind).
Then there is the question of whether a particular person wants to be called an expert. That might make them feel pressured or hesitant to post. I think that some of the members who I would consider very clear-thinking and well-informed already keep an eye out for questions that they are particularly qualified to discuss.
I think we are left with getting to know people, critically evaluating what we read, and getting professional input. Fortunately, when someone does post misinformation, someone often comes along to offer better info.
-
Moderators, about two years ago you asked to nominate VIP members and the idea was basically the same as now. Nominations were submitted but I don't think I went anywhere. Why? What happenned to that initiative
-
I agree with Shetland. I do not think having an expert or professional is not needed and no way to do it without being a popularity contest. I thought you guys ( mods ) were the experts. I agree I like that everyone has their opinion and experiences and generally do well speaking it. Wouldn't like someone to come in and expertly say that didn't happen to them and therefore not true. Every cancer and treatments vary so much per person and per m/o.
Just my opinion
-
I understand that this has been offered to help people. I have my 3 guru's and follow them each day. They are invaluable to me. But the idea of having 'expert members' who are designated by BCO could be a disaster. If something went wrong with advise the 'expert' member' gave to a member I see big time legal issues for BCO. Of more importance how this could potentially affect someone with a life and death decision. Personally, I would like to hear what Special K, Barred Owl and Melissa have to say.
-
Thank you all for the valuable feedback! We appreciate it very much, and have a lot to consider.
-
The people designated should be compassionate and unbiased.
The people designated should relate experiences, and direct people to appropriate sites to seek information. They really need to be people who don't come across as condescending in any way.
The people designated should also not diminish people's thoughts when they are looking for supplements to standard of care treatment. I know that in our March 2015 chemo forum our standing joke is there was nothing coconut oil couldn't help. It is not a standard of care recommendation given out by doctors, but boy it sure helped a lot of our chemo group with many issues.
I'm pretty sure that anybody that has been on this site over a year has a pretty good sense for who should be placed in these positions of trust. I could put in at least 5 members without thinking too hard.
It should also be anonymous and not a forum where everybody puts in names and comments for all to see. So maybe some kind of a survey that goes only to the Moderators?
-
I can see your where you're coming from but without wanting to offend anyone and although I can see that there are members who have had a lot of experience and gained a lot of knowledge, if it comes to medical advice I agree with Cowgirl13, it could lead to problems for the members taking advice and ultimately for BCO if it went wrong. Even an oncologist wouldn't give medical advice based on discussion in BCO. Too many ifs and maybes.
However, if you're asking for experts at giving compassionate, objective help to those seeking a mentor or just someone to "listen" to them, I think members would be able to work that one out, based on those who they, themselves, find helpful.
-
Not mad on using "expert" as a moniker for those here who tirelessly post detailed and thoughtful responses. How about something like "mentor". And I agree that there are many psychologically supportive members who aren't necessarily experts, but who do great service chiming in with appropriate advice and kind words on many posts.
Also, this disease has many variations, and perhaps some people are better supporting their cohort than straying to different topics. Certainly Stage IV boards need a class of advisor who is really experienced in late stage bc.
Mods, you keep talking about a revamp of BCO then ignoring questions about when this will happen and what it will entail. Would this new feature not be part of a new site structure?
-
Personally, I think that unless a person has a solid medical background and has worked in the field of BC they are not experts. Many people here have knowledge they acquired by being elected to join our very special club and I appreciate the fact that they share what the have learned. Sometimes, however, theinformation they give is outdated, slanted and just flat out wrong which is not helpful to anyone and can be outright harmful.
Unless you plan to fact check each and every post of your "experts" you are creating a potential monster that might hurt rather than help this community.
-
I guess I have mixed feelings about the whole "expert" idea. There are people whose posts I always try to read (like DJMammo's) who are clearly an expert but who also have the unusual combination of being able to clearly articulate a complex idea without using complex language and being nonjudgmental (even if the poster seems misinformed or very anxious). Those replies provide articulate and relatable unbiased information. Many of us know 'experts' who don't have the ability to clearly explain complex concepts to non-experts or who don't have the patience to do it gracefully over and over again; so just being an expert isn't the only key quality.
There are also others, though, who have a great deal of personal experience that can be useful to posters, or who do careful research on issues that pertain to many of us. Whether the same moniker applies to both, I'm not sure. I would consider myself an expert in mental health, as that has been my field of study and I have been licensed and worked in that field for 17 years. I only began working with ca survivors after my own diagnosis and treatment was completed, and do not currently dedicate my whole working day to "all things bc."
I guess I don't have a clear understanding about how the designation would work. Would there be one designation "expert" or would there be "expert in imaging", "expert in ILC", "expert in IBC" etc. It does seem like an overwhelming thing to be an "expert" of everything bc related, as even expert MOs/BS at various facilities may disagree on what is the best treatment plan for a specific presentation (that's why many of us get second or third opinions). So I am still in the undecided camp, not quite sure how this would work.
-
If you do this, I would very, very carefully go over it with a lawyer.
There are clearly some people on these boards - Binney, Beesie, Barred Owl, but they are not the only ones - who, whether they have any medical or scientific background or not (I don't know), have what appears to me (being someone in medicine) to have a firm grasp on the concepts of medical statistics and the research in their areas of interest. I understand the urge to designate them as "experts" because, frankly, I see a lot of posts that make me cringe from their lack of understanding of either basic medical science, or, more often, statistics. I do wish members would give more weight to the posters who have a better grasp of these areas.
On the other hand, if, in my work, I give my advice/opinion and follow it with my "MD," I am protected by my malpractice insurance, and by the fact that I am licensed by a state medical board. In my case, someone - specifically a medical school and a state licensing board - has judged me to know my stuff well enough to give me a label that tells others I am competent to give the advice I give.
I do think about this whenever I post here or elsewhere: I am very conscious that my insurance would not cover me. I think long and hard about how I word things, I rarely mention that I'm in medicine, and, if I do, it's usually related to something experiential and general (such as how doctors talk to each other) or a very high level of concern for someone (and I tell them to see their doctor!), and I also always try to make it clear that I am not in oncology. Sometimes I'll identify myself as an MD as context for my own experience, such as when I had cellulitis after I'd done something stupid (should've known better!). But if I went over my posts, I am guessing that a very small percentage would identify me in any way as a physician. That would be a legal liability for me here.
Much as I respect some of the members here and much as I sometimes trust their information - and I do wish I could remember the names of all the people I lump in that category with Binney, Beesie and Barred Owl - and much as it is frustrating to me that "N of 1" posts by people who are medically naive can potentially be given as much as weight as a post by a member as a post by someone like Binney, I am worried that alternative you propose could put either your organization or these "experts" at legal and financial risk.
Have you thought of other options? Please do not do it by total number of posts.
-
As I've thought about this issue, it's occurred to me that many times we'll see a member advise someone to go to this or that particular thread relating to their questin, or read a piece by member x, or "hopefully member y will be along shortly to chime in on this." In other words, members already tend to steer other members (usually newcomers) to those who seem to have a particularly solid grasp of that particular issue, along with the ability to stick to the question at hand and relate the info in a fairly dispassionate, neutral manner.
Thus, I'm not sure we really NEED the feature/designation under discussion. I do see the potential for numerous issues (legal and otherwise) and rifts arising from it.
-
I would personally not want my posts to have any kind of "expert" designation, and I think this concept is rife with potential for trouble. I post as a member of BCO who has been treated for breast cancer, and that is the extent of my expertise. I think what we already do here works - as stated in the header and mentioned above - there are many here day in, and day out, helping as best we can, directing people with questions, or those who are new, to those who can supply information based on their personal knowledge or experience. People on this site can discern for themselves what advice or information they would like to pursue further with their physicians or treatment team. Aside from the factual and vetted information on the main site of BCO, we are all here as part of a community of patients - not medical professionals - to support each other, or those with concerns for friends and family. Each of us has a team of physicians who are supposed to give us "expert" advice, I am not sure we should be relying on each other for anything beyond what we already do.
-
Have you asked the members that might be considered if they are even interested in this idea?
-
lol soeacial k I was going to nominate you
-
I'm not a fan of this site choosing its own experts. Even if you leave the quotation marks.
Some online forums have user designations based on how many posts they have. Zero to 500 might have something next to their post count that says, for example: Rookies. The 500 - 1000 could be in the Not My First Rodeo group, and someone like Special K (hi, and thanks!) with over 13,000 posts could be Big League. That might be one way to call attention to the fact that we don't all have the same level of experience learning about and living with cancer.
Star members would tend to be those who have been here longer and who have a larger number of posts. People like me who haven't been here for very long, and who only pop in occasionally wouldn't make it into that category, and probably don't deserve to have our opinions weigh more than a newbie's.
So, I would support some system that draws attention to the posters who participate more and have more time on the boards, but I don't want this place to sponsor a well-meaning but insensitive popularity contest.
-
I don't know even about going by the number of posts - I've seen numerous posts from members who've been dealing w/cancer for years but rarely post. That doesn't mean they're 'rookies.'
I think members are perfectly capable of seeing the number of posts beneath someone's name. We don't need labels.
-
Hopeful, I agree that we don't need labels. Including the Expert label. It was a suggestion based on what I've seen elsewhere, which I think is only a little better than the original idea of nominating some of us as experts. We might all be considered experts after a few months of appointments, scans, drugs, treatments, etc, when it comes to our own health. Less so with the health of others, who may have an entirely different set of circumstances than our own.
-
Dear Members,
We appreciate your taking the time to offer your thoughts on this idea. Just to be clear the notion of identifying some as "experts" on the boards in various topic areas was a suggestion that came from our members. We are posing the idea here to gather more feedback. Perhaps "experts" is not the right term and "mentors" or "ambassadors" would be a better fit. Lend your thoughts as well as to what if any term might make more sense to you if we were to consider this designation.
Thanks and keep the comments coming.
The Mods
-
Dear Mods,
This discussion, while well intended, of nominating "experts" is really a moot point. You already did an excellent job in creating Forum: Clinical Trials, Research News, Podcasts, Study Results with very clearly stated requirements as the first topic;
Topic: Please Read Before Posting in this Forum
- Share your research articles, interpretations and experiences here. Let us know how these studies affect you and your decisions
"• When posting study results, please source all health/medical information when it is not personal experience or general knowledge. Personal experience is any symptom, test, treatment etc. that you or a close family member has undergone herself/himself. All statements about statistics, data, studies and new advancement in medicine should have trustworthy sources, and be referenced in your post.
• To find out more information on Clinical Trials, we suggest visiting The National Cancer Institute at http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials.
Please go here to review our Community Rules.
Thank you for your cooperation,
The Mods "
I agrees with those who have posted before me - designating "experts" would be a bad idea.
- Those with the title of expert or mentor would be overwhelmed with PMs requesting help, answers, opinions, and such.
- Some of the PMs could result in harassment or abusive language if the PM'er wasn't satisfied with the expert's replies or if the person considered the expert to be a rival.
- Experts would most likely become hesitant to or completely retreat from posting.
- Vying for the expert title would most definitely become a popularity contest among members. Our highly valued and cherished posters who have been so generously contributing their knowledge and advice would surely not want to be caught up in such school girl/boy hijinks.
- BCO members already do outstanding work "policing" our own. If a member needs help, others jump in and direct that person to the needed information.
I do wish that there were a way to censure/reprimand those members who repeatedly post information that is blatantly false and potentially harmful, if not deadly. Mods, you are aware of these posters but do not take any actions. This should be the issue most concerning.
Thank you Mods for giving us the opportunity to express our opinions on the experts idea before implementing it.
-
Nine Twelve - Agree, 100%.
-
Mods SERIOUSLY are you tigers for punishment? Why are you trying to shoot yourselves in the foot? I mean that in the sense of making work for yourselves. To instantiate this and then monitor it would be a nightmare of epic proportions with potential pitfalls everywhere.
I agree with all those who intimate the expert title (or the like) is a bad idea. It's going out on a limb with too many unknowns. For example, you have no idea whether, or to what degree, this will foment an "us and them" status among any given number of "experts".
Consider that this is the internet, where for the most part, people are not going to be able to know the "expert" in the same capacity as a real life situation. Moreover, the interwebs is at a disadvantage by it's very nature because it makes scrutinizing someone far more difficult.
-
Mods, if some people are classified as experts, then what about the rest of us who can't easily quote and explain studies and standards of care. Why should I bother posting if I'm not an expert, when what I have thoughtfully written is disregarded because I don't gave a "title". I can foresee a time when those of us with nothing but our own personal experiences to offer just quit coming here because we feel like we're not good enough to contribute.
-
I think it is a bad idea.
Categories
- All Categories
- 679 Advocacy and Fund-Raising
- 289 Advocacy
- 68 I've Donated to Breastcancer.org in honor of....
- Test
- 322 Walks, Runs and Fundraising Events for Breastcancer.org
- 5.6K Community Connections
- 282 Middle Age 40-60(ish) Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 53 Australians and New Zealanders Affected by Breast Cancer
- 208 Black Women or Men With Breast Cancer
- 684 Canadians Affected by Breast Cancer
- 1.5K Caring for Someone with Breast cancer
- 455 Caring for Someone with Stage IV or Mets
- 260 High Risk of Recurrence or Second Breast Cancer
- 22 International, Non-English Speakers With Breast Cancer
- 16 Latinas/Hispanics With Breast Cancer
- 189 LGBTQA+ With Breast Cancer
- 152 May Their Memory Live On
- 85 Member Matchup & Virtual Support Meetups
- 375 Members by Location
- 291 Older Than 60 Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 177 Singles With Breast Cancer
- 869 Young With Breast Cancer
- 50.4K Connecting With Others Who Have a Similar Diagnosis
- 204 Breast Cancer with Another Diagnosis or Comorbidity
- 4K DCIS (Ductal Carcinoma In Situ)
- 79 DCIS plus HER2-positive Microinvasion
- 529 Genetic Testing
- 2.2K HER2+ (Positive) Breast Cancer
- 1.5K IBC (Inflammatory Breast Cancer)
- 3.4K IDC (Invasive Ductal Carcinoma)
- 1.5K ILC (Invasive Lobular Carcinoma)
- 999 Just Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastasis
- 652 LCIS (Lobular Carcinoma In Situ)
- 193 Less Common Types of Breast Cancer
- 252 Male Breast Cancer
- 86 Mixed Type Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Not Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastases but Concerned
- 189 Palliative Therapy/Hospice Care
- 488 Second or Third Breast Cancer
- 1.2K Stage I Breast Cancer
- 313 Stage II Breast Cancer
- 3.8K Stage III Breast Cancer
- 2.5K Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
- 13.1K Day-to-Day Matters
- 132 All things COVID-19 or coronavirus
- 87 BCO Free-Cycle: Give or Trade Items Related to Breast Cancer
- 5.9K Clinical Trials, Research News, Podcasts, and Study Results
- 86 Coping with Holidays, Special Days and Anniversaries
- 828 Employment, Insurance, and Other Financial Issues
- 101 Family and Family Planning Matters
- Family Issues for Those Who Have Breast Cancer
- 26 Furry friends
- 1.8K Humor and Games
- 1.6K Mental Health: Because Cancer Doesn't Just Affect Your Breasts
- 706 Recipe Swap for Healthy Living
- 704 Recommend Your Resources
- 171 Sex & Relationship Matters
- 9 The Political Corner
- 874 Working on Your Fitness
- 4.5K Moving On & Finding Inspiration After Breast Cancer
- 394 Bonded by Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Life After Breast Cancer
- 806 Prayers and Spiritual Support
- 285 Who or What Inspires You?
- 28.7K Not Diagnosed But Concerned
- 1K Benign Breast Conditions
- 2.3K High Risk for Breast Cancer
- 18K Not Diagnosed But Worried
- 7.4K Waiting for Test Results
- 603 Site News and Announcements
- 560 Comments, Suggestions, Feature Requests
- 39 Mod Announcements, Breastcancer.org News, Blog Entries, Podcasts
- 4 Survey, Interview and Participant Requests: Need your Help!
- 61.9K Tests, Treatments & Side Effects
- 586 Alternative Medicine
- 255 Bone Health and Bone Loss
- 11.4K Breast Reconstruction
- 7.9K Chemotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 2.7K Complementary and Holistic Medicine and Treatment
- 775 Diagnosed and Waiting for Test Results
- 7.8K Hormonal Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 50 Immunotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 7.4K Just Diagnosed
- 1.4K Living Without Reconstruction After a Mastectomy
- 5.2K Lymphedema
- 3.6K Managing Side Effects of Breast Cancer and Its Treatment
- 591 Pain
- 3.9K Radiation Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 8.4K Surgery - Before, During, and After
- 109 Welcome to Breastcancer.org
- 98 Acknowledging and honoring our Community
- 11 Info & Resources for New Patients & Members From the Team