How to Nominate "Expert" Members? Need your help!

I also think it is a bad idea, for the reasons many have articulated.

One additional issue that I am not sure has been discussed (and apologies if I missed it): one can be an expert in some areas of this crappy disease, but not others. How would one quantify that type of expertise? One could be an expert on the latest research, for example, because one follows it closely, but know almost nothing about the current political environment around bc related issues such as health care coverage (sadly, the areas of policy/politics and research appear all too often not to be linked in any meaningful way, not that I am an expert in that linkage or lack thereof...)

Then there is the difficult question as to what makes one an expert. No, it isn't just involvement in research or advocacy or outside organizations, IMO. On some level, we are all experts on our own situations. Isn't that why we often tell posters that they should trust their instincts and advocate for themselves?

I'd also be very concerned that some who are not designated as experts might feel hesitant to start potentially important threads, because they lacked a 'title' that others have....

Sometimes one's personal observations and circumstances can be as important as so-called expertise....

Octogirl

I think it would change the community feel. If I ask a question or want an opinion I would want everyone to feel comfortable responding. I wouldn't want someone to feel like they were going against a "expert" or "mentor". My Dr's are experts, I want a more personal opinion when I'm on this site. I just think it would cause arguments. I also see a lot of copy and pasting and although that might be helpful, it doesn't make someone an expert. Just my opinion:)

Mods, I really appreciate your running ideas by the community and asking for user input. The most successful designs are those made in cooperation with the people most affected by them.

I think the more complete, accurate, detailed, and up-to-date the articles on the "main site" are, the more we can refer newbies and others there for info.

Mods in re: "The VIP "program" was also an attempt to thank and recognize some exceptional members, all people who were called out by their fellow members." I personally think that many of us thank and acknowledge, in our posts, those who are reliably helpful. It's also easy to send someone a PM to express appreciation. In a sense we all have our own mental "VIP" lists but mine may not agree with everyone else's. I simply don't see that we need community-wide "VIPs." In a world that is increasingly separated by artificial distinctions, such as in air travel, color of one's credit card, zip code, etc., I've found the egalitarian nature of this board refreshing. I'd hate to lose that.

Mods, the term "mentor" is much better!

I am glad to know that the powers that be are receptive to the views of the rank and file. I am also glad that you are examining the VIP program as it truly serves no purpose. People giving their time to help others find their satisfaction in knowing that they are helping others. Is anything more really necessary?

hi, two thoughts:

1. Number of posts doesn't designate expertise. I'm a case in point. Played a lot of games during sleepless nights and really racked 'em up.

2. There's a pinned thread in the Forum: Acknowledging and Honoring our Community titled "BCO Community Member-Nominated VIPs!" It points to the webpage with the profiles created by the Mods but doesn't allow for us to add our own posts. Perhaps it could? Then we could give a shout-out to extra-helpful members.

As an attorney, it is a risky idea from a liability standpoint and potentially dangerous for BCO members, as members would likely inappropriately rely on and make life-impacting decisions based on people's opinions that are not qualified at the end of the day to advise others in a formal way. By designating people as "experts", BCO is giving its stamp of approval and vouching for these people. Along with that comes the assumption that BCO has robustly vetted these people with a thorough level of due diligence. This could end up having very tragic outcomes for members if this is put into place.

Many oncologists would not even be considered breast cancer experts. My prior MO was the head of my cancer center and its research program, was then the head of the Cleveland Clinic's oncology practice in my state and is now the head at Yale. He treated hundreds of breast cancer patients. That does not make him a breast cancer expert and he would not consider himself one. He is a world reknown lung cancer specialist and although he treated a significant percentage of breast cancer patients, it was very clear in my treatment and the way he approached it that he was not a breast specialist. My treatment is night and day with my current MO who is a breast specialist. If my prior MO, with all of his pedigree, is not an expert in breast cancer, how could we begin to consider that some of us laypersons on this site could be considered experts, and put the lives of fellow BCO members in our hands.

TT, I agree we should all double-check.

People offering opinions vs. people identified as experts seems to me to be legally different. Notice that when Mods respond to medical content, they tend to extend empathy and recommend a page on the main BCO site, rather than make a specific response to medical questions. As agents of BCO, their legal status is different from ours.