![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 15 of 15. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by spoc on April 6, 2004, at 17:43:23
A lot of times I see people who may be new -- or new to researching a certain matter -- starting new threads with data/experience requests, that I know I've seen many archived threads devoted to that could help them immensely. By initiating the subject again they may get a few responses, but won't tap into that great reserve. And some members may have replied on the topic so many times already that they can't write at length about it again, or dig up all the previous relevant threads on it.
So, I've noticed at some boards that prominent and permanent "stickies" regarding key site tips are placed. I was wondering if an eye-catching color or location could be used to place a sticky on all PB boards -- especially meds -- as a reminder about how helpful it is to also search the archives. It's probably in the FAQs, but realistically....you know. Maybe such a sticky could also have some basic info on the difference between PB searches and "PB-powered-by-Google" searches, and how to keep the date ranges recent. I'd also add that when they are taken to Google from here, it's imperative to then click on "Advanced Search," so that they can narrow the avalanche of data found otherwise.
Just thoughts, because data is a big part of what I use the site for and I can't imagine having relied instead on there being a current thread about something I'm researching, or on getting all angles covered in any new thread I may start. I do searches on a topic running from present to a couple years back, or longer depending on the type of subject. After that I'd ask any remaining questions, or for opinions or updates on what I found. (Of course none of this applies to seeking support or being social!)
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 6, 2004, at 21:41:50
In reply to PB sticky on checking archives? Dr. Bob, posted by spoc on April 6, 2004, at 17:43:23
> A lot of times I see people who may be new -- or new to researching a certain matter -- starting new threads with data/experience requests, that I know I've seen many archived threads devoted to that could help them immensely.
I agree, and others also get frustrated by that. It's labor-intensive, but it may be most effective to reply with a suggestion regarding the archives. Like I do about double double quotes...
But remember, you can lead a horse to archives, but you can't make him search...
> Maybe such a sticky could also have some basic info on the difference between PB searches and "PB-powered-by-Google" searches, and how to keep the date ranges recent.
FYI, I may be removing Psycho-Babble Search function entirely, it's getting really outdated and takes up a fair amount of space. But the Options and Examples would stay...
> I'd also add that when they are taken to Google from here, it's imperative to then click on "Advanced Search," so that they can narrow the avalanche of data found otherwise.
Speaking of which, what do you do there to narrow it down further? That's something I could add...
Bob
Posted by spoc on April 7, 2004, at 21:07:31
In reply to Re: checking archives, posted by Dr. Bob on April 6, 2004, at 21:41:50
> But remember, you can lead a horse to archives, but you can't make him search...>
-----------
I actually think many people aren't as familiar with searching to any degree of efficiency as we may assume. I've been surprised more often than not, and I don't mean with just older people. Often they just haven't seen the options and the benefits/results from a proper search. I've demonstrated for friends with on their own general info needs, and they are always amazed and hooked on using those tips for any further quests. I think Babblers would be too. Many people posting “urgent” informational requests about, say, a med/combo or a certain psychotherapeutic method probably really do want data more so than chat and interaction. While that may be nice to follow up with I don't think they'd use it first, as the path of least resistance, if they'd seen firsthand how much more easily and thoroughly they can get at the info. (But hmmmm, instead maybe there's a job in here for me somewhere!) I think it's just a combo of flukes and unconscious assumptions that keep more people from trying it full steam. Most people don't even realize the "Advanced" option exists in search engines. Entering “prozac” with or without “side effects” or “CBT” with or without “benefits” into a basic search could only be a hairy nightmare.
--------------
> FYI, I may be removing Psycho-Babble Search function entirely, it's getting really outdated and takes up a fair amount of space. But the Options and Examples would stay...>-------------
I assume you mean just remove the search box on the main page? Well -- either way, Babblers should then know that if they do click on "Advanced" at Google as I mentioned, they can scroll past the entry lines to the options boxes, and set it to return hits from your site (“Domain”) only. I think they could even place that filter and then save that version of the blank Google search page to their Internet "Favorites," so they don't have to reenter it each time.-------
> > I'd also add that when they are taken to Google from here, it's imperative to then click on "Advanced Search," so that they can narrow the avalanche of data found otherwise.
>
> Speaking of which, what do you do there to narrow it down further? That's something I could add...>
> Bob
-------------Wow, where to start. This is the kind of thing I'll want to post back to with additional examples every ten minutes for the rest of my life! But I'll try to curb it (try, I said). I use Google most but this is similar for any of the search engines. (I know *you* know this but here goes...) When you go to Google via Babble (or otherwise), click on "Advanced" there. You get slots labeled "With ALL of the words:" "With the EXACT phrase:" "With AT LEAST one of the words:" and "WITHOUT the words:"
Often, as mentioned, putting all of your search terms into the standard one-line slot from the Babble or the Google main (basic search) page will return a prohibitive number of hits. And forget it if you are researching some combination. The results you get will often not even find occurrences of the two words/criteria in *conjunction* with each other in the threads or even whole board pages found. I'm just making up the following examples so I don't know if these pan out, but you'll get the idea. It is usually best to start off relatively broad -- UNLIKE the dream-world scenario I progress into below (it’s mainly for illustration purposes). I’ll come back to this, but do start somewhat broad; and THEN after you get a pool of returns that is still too large or unfocused, use the "Search within results" option at the bottom of the results page. When you do that, you only get one slot that time, so be sure to use good old-fashioned Boolean operators (quotes around words to keep together, AND, OR, etc.) I’ve pasted a link to some of Google’s Boolean operators later.
Anyway! Enter any old word into the Babble/Google search line just to catch a ride to Google, and then click on "Advanced" when you get there. If I were only interested in 2003 and 2004 hits about Ritalin and klonopin used together, I’d think about how they would appear in most sentences. I may try combos of the following until I start getting where I want: In the "Exact phrase" line I'll take stabs at "Ritalin and klonopin;" "klonopin and Ritalin;" "Ritalin with klonopin" and "klonopin with Ritalin." Because, how many other ways could the words appear if being posted about together. (Actually Google ignores some small connecting words but this way you’ll get hits where your terms are immediately together rather than in different sentences or even just anywhere on the same page together.) Sometimes I'll cover both brand and generic name combos too.
I would try similar combining if my objective were, say, to research insomnia caused by something: "insomnia (from, because of, due to, etc.) Ritalin;" AND then reverse/play with where "insomnia" and "Ritalin" fall in the phrase.
Then, on the "With AT LEAST one of these words" line, I will put in 2003 and 2004 (sometimes that still brings up out-of-range threads because they were added to/bumped over time, but many less). Or -- and now this has really become just an illustration, because it would be getting TOO narrow, for Babble at least -- enter another parameter you have, such as "diabetic" or "diabetes" if applicable. You want to toy with various *versions* of words like that too.
For further tailoring, enter other applicable words you may have into "With ALL these words," such as "tolerance" and "dose" if those are what you are also checking for. But in reality before this point you probably would have had to keep it broader and THEN start plugging parameters into "Search within results." From there or any place else logical in the options I've described, you could track down withdrawal, weight gain, liver damage, whatever you need to from your main topic objective. If you narrow too much you can obviously get little or nothing, but if your first few attempts don’t pan out, keep switching words and terms around in the various slots and viola, one day you’ll catch your rhythm and be hooked.
I really don't ever recommend using the "WITHOUT the words" slot, because it really will skip anything using those words, even if it's just on the same board page. It can help with *general* searching though, such as if you're researching how the sun rises and keep getting Hemmingway or poetry matches.
Dr. Bob, I could probably search for a more concise article on using "Advanced" if you'd like! Here is a link to Google’s tips on tailoring a search *without* using "Advanced," but this wouldn't be easier. They didn’t seem to have their own tips on “Advanced” available, I guess because they think it’s self-explanatory.
http://www.google.com/help/refinesearch.html
Often I email myself a link to my search results page if I've toyed and toyed with word combos and finally struck gold, but don’t have time to read through it, and don’t want to write down what the winning combo was. This may all seem like a lot of trouble but the returns you get after a few minutes of tweaking words are so much more useful. And anything's better than getting 1,673,249 matches to a search and then just giving up after reading only two loosely related items. I actually find it to be a fun and challenging game and enjoy it! What, no time for that? Do you have time for the other 1,673,249 posts?? Or hey! Why not start a NEW thread…. Ha ha, kidding, I really don’t think that’s the logic when someone is “desperate” in regard to something like Effexor withdrawals, or an initial consultation with a therapist who practices a method they're not familiar with. I think they'd often invoke their God-given right to get the best info possible if they are more aware of options.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 8, 2004, at 10:32:20
In reply to Re: Babble/Google searching, checking archives » Dr. Bob, posted by spoc on April 7, 2004, at 21:07:31
> I actually think many people aren't as familiar with searching to any degree of efficiency as we may assume... I've demonstrated for friends with on their own general info needs, and they are always amazed and hooked on using those tips for any further quests. I think Babblers would be too.
Hmm, what if posters were directed to a specific thread for tips on how to search? So they could receive more personalized help?
> hmmmm, instead maybe there's a job in here for me somewhere!
Right! :-)
> > FYI, I may be removing Psycho-Babble Search function entirely, it's getting really outdated and takes up a fair amount of space.
>
> I assume you mean just remove the search box on the main page?No, I mean the internal PB search function that only searches posts through 6/02...
> Babblers should then know that if they do click on "Advanced" at Google as I mentioned, they can scroll past the entry lines to the options boxes, and set it to return hits from your site (“Domain”) only.
The box here actually does that for you...
> > Speaking of which, what do you do there to narrow it down further? That's something I could add...
>
> Wow, where to start. This is the kind of thing I'll want to post back to with additional examples every ten minutes for the rest of my life!Thanks for all the tips. Maybe I should link to this thread from the Options and Examples section...
> Dr. Bob, I could probably search for a more concise article on using "Advanced" if you'd like! Here is a link to Google’s tips on tailoring a search *without* using "Advanced"...
>
> http://www.google.com/help/refinesearch.htmlAnd to articles like that...
Bob
Posted by spoc on April 8, 2004, at 11:13:22
In reply to Re: Babble/Google searching, posted by Dr. Bob on April 8, 2004, at 10:32:20
> > I actually think many people aren't as familiar with searching to any degree of efficiency as we may assume...>
---
> Hmm, what if posters were directed to a specific thread for tips on how to search? So they could receive more personalized help?>
---
> > ...instead maybe there's a job in here for me somewhere!>
---
> Right! :-)>
=================
I'll email you.
==================> > > FYI, I may be removing Psycho-Babble Search function entirely, it's getting really outdated and takes up a fair amount of space. > >
---
> > I assume you mean just remove the search box on the main page? >
---
> No, I mean the internal PB search function that only searches posts through 6/02...>
---
> > Babblers should then know that if they do click on "Advanced" at Google as I mentioned, they can scroll past the entry lines to the options boxes, and set it to return hits from your site (“Domain”) only.>
---
> The box here actually does that for you...>
================
That is what I always use -- I see where I read hastily and misunderstood. I thought you meant you were going to remove searching completely; or move the recurring search boxes on every page to just one area, say to Options. But yes, you're right -- the Babble-without-Google search function definitely seems expendable. People can still set their search years to whatever they want by plugging them into "Advanced" at Google (or even into a basic search, if they don't need to set an "either/or" range).Here's a thought! Next to the Babble/Google search box, could you place small print saying something like "To add search parameters, click on 'Advanced' from the Google page you will now be taken to. See PB Options for more details." Then everyone would be aware that they *have* options and where to find them, and the instructions could "safely" be placed all in one remote area.
====================
> > > Speaking of which, what do you do there to narrow it down further? That's something I could add...> >
---
> > Wow, where to start. This is the kind of thing I'll want to post back to with additional examples every ten minutes for the rest of my life! >
---
> Thanks for all the tips. Maybe I should link to this thread from the Options and Examples section...>
=======================
I've noticed that you don't like to edit people's writing, so just wanted to say that in this case, please do feel free to edit mine. I know I have an unmedicated problem with being concise! To me, everything I say on a matter is key and couldn't be eliminated and still maintain clarity. BUT I know that is not accurate! So I won't be bothered! (Unless you get it wrong, ha ha!)
====================
> > Dr. Bob, I could probably search for a more concise article on using "Advanced" if you'd like! Here is a link to Google’s tips on tailoring a search *without* using "Advanced"...
> >
> > http://www.google.com/help/refinesearch.html;
---
> And to articles like that...
> Bob
====================
I will forward any additional useful search links I find. : )
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 8, 2004, at 17:58:57
In reply to Re: Babble/Google searching » Dr. Bob, posted by spoc on April 8, 2004, at 11:13:22
> Here's a thought! Next to the Babble/Google search box, could you place small print saying something like "To add search parameters, click on 'Advanced' from the Google page you will now be taken to. See PB Options for more details." Then everyone would be aware that they *have* options and where to find them, and the instructions could "safely" be placed all in one remote area.
How about just a link to "Search Options and Examples"? Thanks for your help with this,
Bob
Posted by spoc on April 8, 2004, at 18:23:21
In reply to Re: Babble/Google searching, posted by Dr. Bob on April 8, 2004, at 17:58:57
Posted by spoc on April 8, 2004, at 18:54:30
In reply to Re: Babble/Google searching, posted by Dr. Bob on April 8, 2004, at 17:58:57
> How about just a link to "Search Options and Examples"? Thanks for your help with this,
>
> Bob
---The new members who tend to start new threads without realizing they may miss a lot by not searching wouldn't be getting far enough to see a link placed at the Search box. I think a statement and "quiz" question appearing during the registration process would help too, in directing the people who may have rushed in mainly to ask a many-times-answered med question.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 11, 2004, at 4:02:51
In reply to Re: Like Columbo, one more thing... (short!) » Dr. Bob, posted by spoc on April 8, 2004, at 18:54:30
> > How about just a link to "Search Options and Examples"?
OK, I've made that change...
> The new members who tend to start new threads without realizing they may miss a lot by not searching wouldn't be getting far enough to see a link placed at the Search box.
There's a search box before the list of posts on each main page, too...
> I think a statement and "quiz" question appearing during the registration process would help too, in directing the people who may have rushed in mainly to ask a many-times-answered med question.
Hmm, I hadn't thought of using the quiz in that way... The FAQ does mention it...
Bob
Posted by spoc on April 11, 2004, at 19:43:07
In reply to Re: one more thing, posted by Dr. Bob on April 11, 2004, at 4:02:51
> > > How about just a link to "Search Options and Examples"?
>
> OK, I've made that change... >------
And a thing of beauty it is! Great chart and links. Btw, I posted general concept stuff on Alternative this weekend, if you think any of it may be useful as part one to my other tips, or info during registration, etc. If so, note that I put one of your links to determining a reliable health care site in it, but maybe your multiple links page under "Quality" would be better. Although, I guess conversely that could even be too much info for someone just skimmimg...Anyway, regardless, thanks for making the changes. Happy to see them and think it will help! :- )
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 12, 2004, at 9:24:15
In reply to Re: breathtaking, awe inspiring! ;- ) » Dr. Bob, posted by spoc on April 11, 2004, at 19:43:07
> Btw, I posted general concept stuff on Alternative this weekend
Thanks, I already added it! :-)
Bob
Posted by spoc on April 12, 2004, at 11:22:38
In reply to Re: general concept stuff, posted by Dr. Bob on April 12, 2004, at 9:24:15
Posted by spoc on April 13, 2004, at 22:37:10
In reply to Re: general concept stuff, posted by Dr. Bob on April 12, 2004, at 9:24:15
> if I were to see a post by itself that had been moved without the entire thread to explain its existence, I would have no idea where it came from
---
> You could click on the link to the post that it's "in reply to"...========
I really should have been that specific in my Part II general tips, it matters and I think a lot of people have not noticed that this is the way to get to the very beginning. Happens with redirects as noted above but also people may *Babble/Google surf (call it Boogling or Gabbling?) into the middle or end of a thread they'd want to read all of.I don't know if it's easy to add to my existing tips but I thought maybe it could fit in here:
"Anyway! Using most of the boards here but mainly meds and alternative, I keep track of interesting suggestions from those relevant sounding threads I skim. Within those threads I usually also find a wealth of additional suggestions that you'd never know were there to look at the thread or post title, and keep track of them too. Sometimes those steps in themselves wind up sending me off on other links or thread offshoots from the main. >>>>>>>>> To see if I'm actually at the beginning of the thread once I open the *apparent* first post in it, I check the link in it that appears after "In reply to." People change post titles within a thread, but you want to keep following it until no title says "RE:" anymore." <<<<<<<<
Posted by terrics on April 20, 2004, at 8:08:40
In reply to Re: one more thing, posted by Dr. Bob on April 11, 2004, at 4:02:51
It is often helpful to many posters if a med question is re-posted. There is often new info. It is also like a refresher course. terrics
Posted by spoc on April 21, 2004, at 7:21:47
In reply to Re: one more thing » Dr. Bob, posted by terrics on April 20, 2004, at 8:08:40
> It is often helpful to many posters if a med question is re-posted. There is often new info. It is also like a refresher course. terrics
------
Definitely new info is a good thing to ask about, as I stated in my process suggestions. But not even a fraction of the collective knowledge of the board to date will come with each refresher, nor even a controlled and representative sample of it. It will be random and largely even a matter of luck. For example, if no one presently perusing the board had much info on it; or had already re-posted it several times and realized by now that their data is rarely accessed by successive inquirers; or with the season the board was simply slower than usual (like now), etc. But even readers of the current thread may assume that the refresher was balanced.What I suggested is just that -- a suggestion, and the ideal, for those who do want the best info on their question. I do understand that using this process is not something most will or even can do. But it's worth saying, as it is clearly in their own best interests when possible, rather than a proposal to somehow take something away from them.
With the really common and rehashed subjects, it's more likely that each successive reinitiation of it will receive less data. If that poster had first looked at other recent data, they could even reinitiate the subject this time using some of the other links they found. That would regenerate interest, and provide potential starting places. Here's a case in point, using a subject less common here than some, but one that is pretty common for depressed people in general to become curious about at some point. In looking for medical causes, they may hear the theory that their dental fillings may be causing their depression. A re-poster would never get to see an effort like this:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020517/msgs/107565.html(General note: if the article referrenced in a post is no longer at that direct link, it will often still be available somewhere at that site. Use the 'search' option available at most.)
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.