Unfortunately am not able to attend this year’s Health 2.0 Conference in San Francisco, but I am monitoring it off and on via live blogs and Twitter for the following two days.
The official Health 2.0 Conference blog is a little slow to update as all the contributors are currently making the event run smoothly, however I believe they will update it throughout the conference.
Craig Stoltz is posting on his Web 2. Oh…Really?blog as well as cross posting on The HealthCare Blog.
I was told the Ozmosis Community blog is also updating throughout the conference.
On Twitter, some people are using the "Health 2.0” tag others are using the "#health20con” tag. Either tag shows up in a Twitter Search for either term. You can even search for a product that is demoing or person who is speaking at the conference to see who is tweeting about them.
NOTE: You do not have to have a Twitter account to see these feeds or to search.
Others are not using tags, but providing great coverage:
Scott Shreeve from Crossover Healthcare, Mark Schrimshire, Unity Stoakes from OrganizedWisdom, Dr. Greene, Robert Hendrick from change:healthcare, and Carlos Rizo.
I apologize if you are also blogging or twittering and I do not mention you. Please comment if you want to be included and I will update at the end of the day to add your feed.
Thank you and enjoy the conference!
UPDATE: Bob Coffield compiled a RSS Feed and a Search Feed for all of the Twitter tags. Much easier to follow. Thanks Bob!
Showing posts with label Twitter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Twitter. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Death of Health 2.0? Let's Start With A Business Model
There have been a number of blog posts over the last few weeks about the demise of Health 2.0, many of which use the death /merger of Revolution Health signaling the end, as well as a few blog posts supporting the future of the movement. There was some intense debate between esteemed members of the H2.0 community through said blog posts, comments on blog posts and more blog posts - all of which I decided not to comment on because those that were commenting and creating the posts know more about the space than I do.
However, I saw two posts today that I thought summed up the economic situation as it relates to Web 2.0 and the health of Health 2.0.
The first of which was written by Dmitriy Kruglyak, from Trusted MD, a healthcare blogging network that FD I have been a member of since July of 2007.
It includes the famous Sequoia Capital presentation to their portfolio companies, quotes from TechCrunch signaling the "ignoble end of Web 2.0", and Dmitriy's own analysis on how this effects Health 2.0:
"I am not going to beat this dead (dying?) horse. If you paid attention to this blog over last two years you would not be surprised at this turn of event. I will just say that an "average" Health 2.0 company that gets mentioned in the news is typically orders of magnitude lower in terms of traffic, engagement and monetization than their Web 2.0 cousins......As I said time and again, Web 2.0 is becoming just as toxic as dotcom (or subprime mortgages and credit default swaps). Conventional wisdom takes a while to form but this process is picking up pace. You can take a guess what will happen with derivative (copycat) ideas, like Health 2.0."
Doesn't sound very promising. Yet it is true. How can a movement and companies sustain momentum in a down-turned economy if there isn't a sound business model? VCs have been throwing money at companies that are cool, but do not have a sound plan or any intention of making money. I look to Twitter, which is valued around $25M (maybe more now), but does not have a business model, and doesn't plan to make any money in the next couple of years. They just received another round of financing this summer. Granted Twitter is very cool and I use it, but there must be something more going on that I am missing here. The value of the community is how Twitter is valued and what they might be able to make from that. Sounds like Facebook, which was valued at $15B at one point from $150M in earnings.
Same with Health 2.0 companies. Lots of them are very cool, but rely on ad revenue or a freemium package. I signed up for a 60 day trial of a PHR to check it out, but when it came time to "buy" a year subscription, I said "no thanks". There wasn't enough offered for the paid service that I could not get from a free service.
This brings me a post from Ben Heywood, Co-Founder and President of Patients Like Me from last week on the PLM "Value of Openness" blog: "I believe we, as the eHealth community, need to focus on two major goals: 1) solve patients’ problems, and 2) create business models that allow us to do #1....I don’t want to prognosticate about what types of business models will work for all Health 2.0 companies as the industry evolves (because, ultimately, this is an evolution). It’s up to each company to figure that out. I do believe that there’s no wrong path when you keep both those goals in your sights."
And this sums up what needs to happen to keep the Health 2.0 movement alive.
PLM's business model is very straightforward: "We build online communities where patients share structured information about their disease to help themselves and others. In turn, we make money by selling that data." PLM is very transparent, and tell their members this upfront, and members encourage the selling of data, as this will help the pharma companies and device manufactuers improve their offerings to patients. PLM also received $5M in VC financing, so that gives them a bit of a cushion until they turn a profit.
Some Health 2.0 companies have gone under, others (like ZocDoc) are still receiving VC funding. It is an interesting time to be in the infancy of the Health 2.0 movement. I have faith that it will continue as long as the innovators create a needed product and can monetize without charging the consumer in a time when patients are having difficulty paying for their healthcare at the Health 1.0 level.
However, I saw two posts today that I thought summed up the economic situation as it relates to Web 2.0 and the health of Health 2.0.
The first of which was written by Dmitriy Kruglyak, from Trusted MD, a healthcare blogging network that FD I have been a member of since July of 2007.
It includes the famous Sequoia Capital presentation to their portfolio companies, quotes from TechCrunch signaling the "ignoble end of Web 2.0", and Dmitriy's own analysis on how this effects Health 2.0:
"I am not going to beat this dead (dying?) horse. If you paid attention to this blog over last two years you would not be surprised at this turn of event. I will just say that an "average" Health 2.0 company that gets mentioned in the news is typically orders of magnitude lower in terms of traffic, engagement and monetization than their Web 2.0 cousins......As I said time and again, Web 2.0 is becoming just as toxic as dotcom (or subprime mortgages and credit default swaps). Conventional wisdom takes a while to form but this process is picking up pace. You can take a guess what will happen with derivative (copycat) ideas, like Health 2.0."
Doesn't sound very promising. Yet it is true. How can a movement and companies sustain momentum in a down-turned economy if there isn't a sound business model? VCs have been throwing money at companies that are cool, but do not have a sound plan or any intention of making money. I look to Twitter, which is valued around $25M (maybe more now), but does not have a business model, and doesn't plan to make any money in the next couple of years. They just received another round of financing this summer. Granted Twitter is very cool and I use it, but there must be something more going on that I am missing here. The value of the community is how Twitter is valued and what they might be able to make from that. Sounds like Facebook, which was valued at $15B at one point from $150M in earnings.
Same with Health 2.0 companies. Lots of them are very cool, but rely on ad revenue or a freemium package. I signed up for a 60 day trial of a PHR to check it out, but when it came time to "buy" a year subscription, I said "no thanks". There wasn't enough offered for the paid service that I could not get from a free service.
This brings me a post from Ben Heywood, Co-Founder and President of Patients Like Me from last week on the PLM "Value of Openness" blog: "I believe we, as the eHealth community, need to focus on two major goals: 1) solve patients’ problems, and 2) create business models that allow us to do #1....I don’t want to prognosticate about what types of business models will work for all Health 2.0 companies as the industry evolves (because, ultimately, this is an evolution). It’s up to each company to figure that out. I do believe that there’s no wrong path when you keep both those goals in your sights."
And this sums up what needs to happen to keep the Health 2.0 movement alive.
PLM's business model is very straightforward: "We build online communities where patients share structured information about their disease to help themselves and others. In turn, we make money by selling that data." PLM is very transparent, and tell their members this upfront, and members encourage the selling of data, as this will help the pharma companies and device manufactuers improve their offerings to patients. PLM also received $5M in VC financing, so that gives them a bit of a cushion until they turn a profit.
Some Health 2.0 companies have gone under, others (like ZocDoc) are still receiving VC funding. It is an interesting time to be in the infancy of the Health 2.0 movement. I have faith that it will continue as long as the innovators create a needed product and can monetize without charging the consumer in a time when patients are having difficulty paying for their healthcare at the Health 1.0 level.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
The HealthCampDC Experience
I went down to Washington DC to attend HealthCampDC on Friday (09.12.08), an "unconference" organized by Mark Scrimshire, a Strategic Consultant and Change Agent. I wasn't sure what to expect. From the group that signed up, I follow four on Twitter, and have spoken with two in the past - so I thought it would be a great opportunity to meet them in person.
As for the agenda? There was no agenda until the group decided what we were going to talk about. Such is the style of BarCamp. Of the 25 people who signed up, only 9 of us made it to the CareFirst offices.
It was a great group and made the day more intimate - representing payor HIT, NIH HIT, consultants for State and Government, MD consultants, Health Ranger, Pollster/e-patient and me.
We had a quick networking session over coffee and muffins, then we all made a dash to the board to post the topics we wanted to discuss.
We all commented how this methodology was much better than a regular conference where people show up with a slide presentation and bore everyone to death. We ended up choosing about 5 different session topics, then sat around a table to discuss. And discuss we did.
Mark did a wonderful job of hosting and organizing, as well as live blogging through the event. Here is his post on the morning sessions, and his recap post of the event.
Our first topics revolved around two projects that two campers were working on. Susannah Fox from the Pew Internet & American Life Project is putting together a new study on Social Media and Health and Lygeia Ricciardi is working on a project to raise patient awareness and adoption of physician sharing of EHRs.
Both topics sparked lots of back and forth about polls, their importance, Health 2.0 tools, EMRs /PHRs access and ownership. Some of the quotes that I have in my notes:
"Don't believe polls that do not include cell phones".
"Everyone is a media company".
"Don't offer consumers a service, offer them a solution".
"CIOs career is based on how many people work under them".
“The only people without access to electronic health records are the patient themselves”.
Ted Eytan, MD mentioned two real world scenarios he has experienced where a EMR would come in handy. 1) A non-English speaking man collapsed on the street in front of him - no one knew what medications he was on or if he had any medical conditions. 2) A cashier at Whole Foods had a medication reaction, yet no one knew what she was on or her conditions, and no one could find her purse. What do you do as a spectator, EMT, MD when the patient is unconcious and you have no idea if what you are doing is going to help or hurt them?
This led into a discussion about primary v. secondary access to healthcare information and services – patient v. family caregiver. How do you engage Helen Keller or her caregiver? 20% are satisfied not being engaged in their healthcare decisions.
Quotes:
“The HealthCare challenge is bigger than any one person or company can tackle alone”.
“We all have to own a part of the solution".
"We are all agents of change”.
Jen McCabe Gorman gave a quick recap of her Medicine 2.0 presentation for the NextHealth model that she and her Dutch group have been working on. Susannah Fox has a great write up over at e-patients.net. I sort of understand their model - here is the Slideshare , the NextHealth research paper and Jen's post about the presentation, but I think I need to walk through it once it is online to fully understand.
Quotes:
“Not all patients are consumers, but all consumers will at some point become patients”.
“The hyper-connected patient (2%) will drive activity and innovation”.
"Everyone can be overwhelmed by the system whether you are the patient, payer, provider or consumer".
"I feel kinda stoopid". This was a major thread through the day.
In the afternoon, we started with a discussion of the tools we, as healthcare professionals, use to keep abreast of new technologies and our peers. The longest discussion was about Twitter (which I have written about before).
Other tools mentioned were lots of Google apps: search, alerts, reader - as well as Delicious, RSS Feeds, Jing, Summize, Friend Feed, Stickam, Feedinformer, blogs and YouTube. There was a Stickam live feed of the event which I did not know about until someone twittered me about it. I learned that Google Reader has a search function so you can add RSS feeds based on the topics you follow.
David Hale gave a presentation on a Drug Identification tool that is being developed by the NIH's National Library of Medicine. It uses FDA pictures and codes to identify pills. We talked about the value of the service as so many patients have unidentified medications. Used the example of medications from Katrina – patients had pill bottles without labels – how to identify them? Would like this tool to be the definitive database for patients, providers, poison control, etc…
The final topics: How can we get DC to become the center for Health 2.0? And where do we go from here? We were but a small group, but everyone has a voice, and has contacts. Who do you get involved? I asked who are the decision makers that can effect change - who has the loudest voice? Patients, providers, payors (probably not), entrepreneurs? Does the squeaky wheel get the grease?
This HealthCamp was a great place to start the East Coast discussion about Health 2.0 and how to enact that change. To quote Mark again: "Despite the scale of the challenge being so great one realization was reached. The Washington DC area is at the epicenter of the transformation of HealthCare. All the major providers compete in this market. Major Provider networks operate, researchers are here, Venture Capitalists are here, Technologists are here, charities representing critical diseases have representation here and the politicians and Federal operations that will pass legislation that will drive change are here. Everyone is in this market. The Washington DC are has all the elements to be the epicenter of Health 2.0."
Next events are HealthCampNy, an uncoference at the Health 2.0 Conference, and another HealthCampDC in late January or February '09.
Thank you again to Mark and all the campers who participated and made HealthCampDC08 such a gerat event! It was a pleasure to meet you all and I look forward to continuing the conversation.
As for the agenda? There was no agenda until the group decided what we were going to talk about. Such is the style of BarCamp. Of the 25 people who signed up, only 9 of us made it to the CareFirst offices.
It was a great group and made the day more intimate - representing payor HIT, NIH HIT, consultants for State and Government, MD consultants, Health Ranger, Pollster/e-patient and me.
We had a quick networking session over coffee and muffins, then we all made a dash to the board to post the topics we wanted to discuss.
We all commented how this methodology was much better than a regular conference where people show up with a slide presentation and bore everyone to death. We ended up choosing about 5 different session topics, then sat around a table to discuss. And discuss we did.
Mark did a wonderful job of hosting and organizing, as well as live blogging through the event. Here is his post on the morning sessions, and his recap post of the event.
Our first topics revolved around two projects that two campers were working on. Susannah Fox from the Pew Internet & American Life Project is putting together a new study on Social Media and Health and Lygeia Ricciardi is working on a project to raise patient awareness and adoption of physician sharing of EHRs.
Both topics sparked lots of back and forth about polls, their importance, Health 2.0 tools, EMRs /PHRs access and ownership. Some of the quotes that I have in my notes:
"Don't believe polls that do not include cell phones".
"Everyone is a media company".
"Don't offer consumers a service, offer them a solution".
"CIOs career is based on how many people work under them".
“The only people without access to electronic health records are the patient themselves”.
Ted Eytan, MD mentioned two real world scenarios he has experienced where a EMR would come in handy. 1) A non-English speaking man collapsed on the street in front of him - no one knew what medications he was on or if he had any medical conditions. 2) A cashier at Whole Foods had a medication reaction, yet no one knew what she was on or her conditions, and no one could find her purse. What do you do as a spectator, EMT, MD when the patient is unconcious and you have no idea if what you are doing is going to help or hurt them?
This led into a discussion about primary v. secondary access to healthcare information and services – patient v. family caregiver. How do you engage Helen Keller or her caregiver? 20% are satisfied not being engaged in their healthcare decisions.
Quotes:
“The HealthCare challenge is bigger than any one person or company can tackle alone”.
“We all have to own a part of the solution".
"We are all agents of change”.
Jen McCabe Gorman gave a quick recap of her Medicine 2.0 presentation for the NextHealth model that she and her Dutch group have been working on. Susannah Fox has a great write up over at e-patients.net. I sort of understand their model - here is the Slideshare , the NextHealth research paper and Jen's post about the presentation, but I think I need to walk through it once it is online to fully understand.
Quotes:
“Not all patients are consumers, but all consumers will at some point become patients”.
“The hyper-connected patient (2%) will drive activity and innovation”.
"Everyone can be overwhelmed by the system whether you are the patient, payer, provider or consumer".
"I feel kinda stoopid". This was a major thread through the day.
In the afternoon, we started with a discussion of the tools we, as healthcare professionals, use to keep abreast of new technologies and our peers. The longest discussion was about Twitter (which I have written about before).
Other tools mentioned were lots of Google apps: search, alerts, reader - as well as Delicious, RSS Feeds, Jing, Summize, Friend Feed, Stickam, Feedinformer, blogs and YouTube. There was a Stickam live feed of the event which I did not know about until someone twittered me about it. I learned that Google Reader has a search function so you can add RSS feeds based on the topics you follow.
David Hale gave a presentation on a Drug Identification tool that is being developed by the NIH's National Library of Medicine. It uses FDA pictures and codes to identify pills. We talked about the value of the service as so many patients have unidentified medications. Used the example of medications from Katrina – patients had pill bottles without labels – how to identify them? Would like this tool to be the definitive database for patients, providers, poison control, etc…
The final topics: How can we get DC to become the center for Health 2.0? And where do we go from here? We were but a small group, but everyone has a voice, and has contacts. Who do you get involved? I asked who are the decision makers that can effect change - who has the loudest voice? Patients, providers, payors (probably not), entrepreneurs? Does the squeaky wheel get the grease?
This HealthCamp was a great place to start the East Coast discussion about Health 2.0 and how to enact that change. To quote Mark again: "Despite the scale of the challenge being so great one realization was reached. The Washington DC area is at the epicenter of the transformation of HealthCare. All the major providers compete in this market. Major Provider networks operate, researchers are here, Venture Capitalists are here, Technologists are here, charities representing critical diseases have representation here and the politicians and Federal operations that will pass legislation that will drive change are here. Everyone is in this market. The Washington DC are has all the elements to be the epicenter of Health 2.0."
Next events are HealthCampNy, an uncoference at the Health 2.0 Conference, and another HealthCampDC in late January or February '09.
Thank you again to Mark and all the campers who participated and made HealthCampDC08 such a gerat event! It was a pleasure to meet you all and I look forward to continuing the conversation.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Highlight HEALTH Cancer Research Blog Carnival - Stand Up To Cancer
This post will attempt to cover a host of topics, so I apologize if it rambles a bit.
First off I was very flattered today to be included in a Cancer Research Blog Carnival on Highlight HEALTH. I checked my email at 3 am while feeding Gray this morning and there was an email from Walter Jessen (author of Highlight HEALTH, neuro-oncology research scientist and bioinformatician) stating he included me in the Carnival.
This is significant for a few reasons:
1st: The Carnival is in support of Stand Up To Cancer a fundraiser tonight at 8 PM on ABC, NBC and CBS benefiting Cancer Research. “In 2008, over half a million Americans are expected to die of cancer, more than 1,500 people a day. Cancer is the second most common cause of death in the U.S., accounting for 1 in every 4 deaths. Nevertheless, since 2003 the U.S. government’s cancer research budget has been cut every single year”.
Matthew Zachary and Dr. Leonard Sender from I’m Too Young For This! will be in the front row, making sure their voice is heard, as there is barely any funding for young adult cancer research.
2nd: I never thought I would be included in a blog carnival, however my post was added because it is an abstract about a video game improving medical adherence in cancer patients. It made me wonder the reach and importance of my blog posts, and also made me think of what I am doing with this blog. My intentions have changed a few times since creating the blog last year, and they keep evolving each month.
3rd: I “met” Walter Jessen on Twitter. I don’t remember how exactly, but I was following someone who was following him, so I started following him and he reciprocated with a follow. We have communicated a few times over tweeets about various topics. I count this as one of the reasons I was included in the Carnival.
I have been working on a blog post about Twitter for health, and how I use it. This is a prime example. I never would have have crossed paths with Walter outside of Twitter – he is in Ohio and although in a somewhat related field, I probably would not have sought him out. I could have discovered his Highlight HEALTH blog, posted some comments and emailed him – but this still relates to social media and its importance in connecting people of like minds.
To further exalt Twitter, I have had a few “conversations” with MDs all over the country about medication adherence, hospital readmit rates, and other front line problems they face with patients. These communications would not have taken place without Twitter.
Another Twitter praise is for conference coverage. I cannot go to Medicine 2.0 in Toronto (started Wednesday), and there is a presentation by the NextHealth team I really want to see. Luckily I am following a few people who are there, and twittering the event. Of course I will read blog posts, see the Slideshare, and probably speak with the presenters next week, but Twitter brings an immediacy that I cannot find elsewhere.
Of course you can also mention the disaster coverage, and the DNC, RNC coverage – Twitter breaks all the news before others. But that is further off the topic.
In conclusion, I am very honored to be included in the Blog Carnival and hope to have something more substantial to add next time; watch and donate to Stand Up To Cancer and support I'm To Young For This!; and join the conversation on Twitter - you can follow me.
Here are Walter's final thoughts from his post on Highlight HEALTH:
The Cancer Research Blog Carnival is looking for future hosts. You can find both the hosting schedule and past editions at the Cancer Research Blog Carnival website .
For more information on the U.S. investment in cancer research, you can read the NCI’s plan and budget proposal for fiscal year 2009.
First off I was very flattered today to be included in a Cancer Research Blog Carnival on Highlight HEALTH. I checked my email at 3 am while feeding Gray this morning and there was an email from Walter Jessen (author of Highlight HEALTH, neuro-oncology research scientist and bioinformatician) stating he included me in the Carnival.
This is significant for a few reasons:
1st: The Carnival is in support of Stand Up To Cancer a fundraiser tonight at 8 PM on ABC, NBC and CBS benefiting Cancer Research. “In 2008, over half a million Americans are expected to die of cancer, more than 1,500 people a day. Cancer is the second most common cause of death in the U.S., accounting for 1 in every 4 deaths. Nevertheless, since 2003 the U.S. government’s cancer research budget has been cut every single year”.
Matthew Zachary and Dr. Leonard Sender from I’m Too Young For This! will be in the front row, making sure their voice is heard, as there is barely any funding for young adult cancer research.
2nd: I never thought I would be included in a blog carnival, however my post was added because it is an abstract about a video game improving medical adherence in cancer patients. It made me wonder the reach and importance of my blog posts, and also made me think of what I am doing with this blog. My intentions have changed a few times since creating the blog last year, and they keep evolving each month.
3rd: I “met” Walter Jessen on Twitter. I don’t remember how exactly, but I was following someone who was following him, so I started following him and he reciprocated with a follow. We have communicated a few times over tweeets about various topics. I count this as one of the reasons I was included in the Carnival.
I have been working on a blog post about Twitter for health, and how I use it. This is a prime example. I never would have have crossed paths with Walter outside of Twitter – he is in Ohio and although in a somewhat related field, I probably would not have sought him out. I could have discovered his Highlight HEALTH blog, posted some comments and emailed him – but this still relates to social media and its importance in connecting people of like minds.
To further exalt Twitter, I have had a few “conversations” with MDs all over the country about medication adherence, hospital readmit rates, and other front line problems they face with patients. These communications would not have taken place without Twitter.
Another Twitter praise is for conference coverage. I cannot go to Medicine 2.0 in Toronto (started Wednesday), and there is a presentation by the NextHealth team I really want to see. Luckily I am following a few people who are there, and twittering the event. Of course I will read blog posts, see the Slideshare, and probably speak with the presenters next week, but Twitter brings an immediacy that I cannot find elsewhere.
Of course you can also mention the disaster coverage, and the DNC, RNC coverage – Twitter breaks all the news before others. But that is further off the topic.
In conclusion, I am very honored to be included in the Blog Carnival and hope to have something more substantial to add next time; watch and donate to Stand Up To Cancer and support I'm To Young For This!; and join the conversation on Twitter - you can follow me.
Here are Walter's final thoughts from his post on Highlight HEALTH:
The Cancer Research Blog Carnival is looking for future hosts. You can find both the hosting schedule and past editions at the Cancer Research Blog Carnival website .
For more information on the U.S. investment in cancer research, you can read the NCI’s plan and budget proposal for fiscal year 2009.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
The eDrugSearch Top 100 Health Blogs and Phrase Cloud
I was watching my Twitter stream and saw a mention of a "phrase cloud" posting of the 883 health and medicine blogs listed by eDrugSearch. I have seen the eDrugSearch Top 100 Health Blogs mentioned before on blogs, but have never really thought the Medication Non-adherence blog would ever get there. Here is the "phrase cloud" of the Top 100.
However, in reading this post and doing some research (thanks Twitter), I see there are actually 883 blogs that are the Top 100 list, so I am going to throw my hat into the ring. A handful of the blogs that I read are in the Top 100, with a handful of the blogs I really like and respect ranging between 300 and 600.
The question is, what does it say about your blog if you have a "high" ranking or no ranking at all? I don't think it discounts what the author has to saw with a "high" ranking, however if a blog is in the top 20, more readers will flock to it, thus keeping the blog's "low" ranking.
eDrugSearch has an algorithm that tracks the "popularity" of your blog based on various other website ranking systems. Here is the outline. If I spend some more time looking into figuring out how to get a higher rank, I might be able to move my number up, but what would be the point? More exposure equals more readers mean that more people will learn about the problems of medication non-adherence and hopefully realize that it is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. And that is the point of this blog, right?
I usually think that rankings and reviews should happen organically, however the more I read about blogging and social media, the more I realize there sometimes you need to be a little PR. Also, you have to register to have your blog reviewed, so here I go into the fray.
However, in reading this post and doing some research (thanks Twitter), I see there are actually 883 blogs that are the Top 100 list, so I am going to throw my hat into the ring. A handful of the blogs that I read are in the Top 100, with a handful of the blogs I really like and respect ranging between 300 and 600.
The question is, what does it say about your blog if you have a "high" ranking or no ranking at all? I don't think it discounts what the author has to saw with a "high" ranking, however if a blog is in the top 20, more readers will flock to it, thus keeping the blog's "low" ranking.
eDrugSearch has an algorithm that tracks the "popularity" of your blog based on various other website ranking systems. Here is the outline. If I spend some more time looking into figuring out how to get a higher rank, I might be able to move my number up, but what would be the point? More exposure equals more readers mean that more people will learn about the problems of medication non-adherence and hopefully realize that it is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. And that is the point of this blog, right?
I usually think that rankings and reviews should happen organically, however the more I read about blogging and social media, the more I realize there sometimes you need to be a little PR. Also, you have to register to have your blog reviewed, so here I go into the fray.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
