dc20015
Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2012
- Messages
- 188
- Reaction score
- 17
Here is the link you were referencing:
http://www.vitals.com/doctors/Dr_Charles_Hackett
To get to the above link, enter the following into the Google search bar:
Charles Peter Hackett+patient +review
It is the first result on the first page.
I found some interesting information about vitals.com, the website that contains the review of the doctor. Here is a sample of what I found with links:
Los Angeles Times
The rating room
Consumer opinions are thriving online, including reviews of doctors.
But is scoring an MD the same as rating an HDTV?
May 19, 2008
Shari Roan/Times Staff Writer
Many say the reviews on RateMDs.com, Vitals.com, DrScore.com and other sites are skewed by disgruntled patients and are thus unfair, pushing some doctors to near-ruin after a single post.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...tals.com+complaints&cd=33&&ct=clnk&gl=ushl=en
Nashville Post
Plastic surgeon fighting online reviews
Defamation lawsuit target anonymous posters
Published December 21, 2010 by Erin Lawly
In the Dec. 15 complaint, Dr. Nicholas Sieveking and Sieveking Plastic Surgery allege various unnamed defendants posted three untrue and damaging reviews about the surgeon on physician review site Vitals.com, one of which claimed the doctor provided no follow-up after a major procedure and that the patient needs corrective surgery.
http://nashvillepost.com/news/2010/12/21/plastic_surgeon_fighting_online_reviews
Chicago Tribune
Doctors: Web ratings flawed
Critics say Web scores based on few reviews are unfair, unreliable
November 15, 2010/ By Julie Deardorff, Tribune reporter
"I get rated by insurance companies and can't stand it," said Boll, who had 12 patient ratings and a 100 percent patient satisfaction rate, according to Consumer's Checkbook. "The stuff they come up with is rarely representative of what I do and how I do it."
But he does see a need for "objective, verifiable and uniform ratings." On vitals.com, which says it rates more than 700,000 doctors, Boll had just one rating. On ratemds.com, one of seven reviewers said "he cares more deeply about his patients than any other doctor I have ever met." But another complained that "his nurse has NEVER once picked up a phone."
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...01115_1_patients-rate-ratemds-com-web-ratings
According a technology profile I consulted for information about the website, vitals.com uses some questionable analytics and tracking for a Healthcare website.
http://builtwith.com/vitals.com
They have employed Quantcast a California based company that measures web audiences. Via a product called Quantcast Measurement, vitals.com is able to get the following information about their site's users:
...user demographics and audience insights. This information includes traffic, demographics, geography, business, site affinity and categories of interest. The service offers MRC accredited traffic data.
Quantcast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But, Quantcast has gotten into trouble for doing even sneakier things like circumventing privacy controls internet surfers have set on their personal computers' web browsers. Here are a couple of stories about it with links:
Wired
Flash Cookie Researchers Spark Quantcast Change
By Ryan Singel
August 12, 2009
...researchers, led by grad student Ashkan Soltani, found that Quantcast was one of several companies who used Flash cookies on the nets most popular websites to re-spawn traditional browser cookies after users had deleted them. According to their findings released on Monday, the undead cookies created by Quantcast were discovered on Hulu.com, the popular online video site, which uses Quantcast to measure its traffic
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/08/flash-cookie-researchers-spark-quantcast-change/
MediaPost News
Specific Media Settles Flash Cookie Suit, Promises
Never To Use Them
by Wendy Davis, Aug. 22, 2011
This lawsuit was one of several recent cases dealing with Flash cookies. Quantcast, Clearspring and Say Media's VideoEgg recently paid a total of $3.4 million to settle similar lawsuits alleging that they circumvented users' privacy controls by using Flash cookies for tracking.
Flash cookies are controversial because some Web companies allegedly use the technology to circumvent users' privacy settings. Flash cookies are stored in a different location in the browser than HTTP cookies, so users who delete their HTTP cookies did not necessarily also delete Flash cookies.
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/156331/
I have learned just from working at a veterinary hospital that these types of reviews must be taken with a whole shaker of salt. They are heavily weighted towards dissatisfied clients, especially when the business involves health care or finances. On the flipside, you will occasionally see people who work at a business put up a positive review not divulging that they happen to be employed by that business.
As far as health care goes, doctors do genuinely make mistakes and health care facilities are sometimes poorly run, but there are some folks who just can't be satisfied. If they had to wait a few hours at an emergency room for non-life-threatening matter, nobody was paying attention to them. If their doctor wasn't working 24hr/day to take a call, even if alternative help was offered, nobody cares. If the doctor didn't "heal" them that day, they didn't know what they were doing and were a waste of time and money. And if they didn't follow instructons as to what to do at home and when/how to follow up, it is never their fault as an individual. No matter how many times it is gone over with them or how many papers are shoved in their face, there is something else the doctor/nurse/whoever should've done.
And, yes, even the best doctors are vulnerable to getting defamed and sued.
I'm not saying Dr. Hackett is a good doctor. Maybe he's terrible. And I have no problem with journalist researched and written articles being shown. But any reference to online review sites that anyone can hop onto is not valid in my book because I've seen firsthand the type of lies people occasionally write when they are either angry or just a nasty person.