Home The Book Dr Articles Products Message Boards Journal Articles Search Our Surveys Surgery ESWT Dr Messages Find Good Drs video

Dr Z and Dr Wander

Posted by Scott R on 11/25/03 at 20:10 (138724)

Dr Z and Dr Wander:
Should i make the doctor's message board where only doctor's should reply?

Re: Dr Z and Dr Wander

Dr. Z on 11/26/03 at 15:54 (138803)

My vote is no. We only have two doctors without Dr. Ed. We need all the help we can get

Re: Dr Z and Dr Wander

Dr. David S. Wander on 11/27/03 at 19:58 (138850)

Scott, that's a tough question to answer. Maybe you should survey the 'readers' to find out if there should be an 'ask the doctor' message board and a separate 'ask a question' message board.

Re: Dr Z and Dr Wander -- more information available on the NEW site but access or mention to that site is blocked by Scott -- email one of the docs for more information

information on 11/27/03 at 20:08 (138852)


Re: Dr Z and Dr Wander -- more information available on the NEW site but access or mention to that site is blocked by Scott -- email one of the docs for more information

http://www.xsorbit2.com/users/footchat/ on 11/27/03 at 20:11 (138853)

Some hints

Re: Dr Z and Dr Wander -- more information available on the NEW site but access or mention to that site is blocked by Scott -- email one of the docs for more information

Dr. Z on 11/27/03 at 22:32 (138859)

I am confused what is all of this about . New Site etc. Strange. Any information about this

Re: Dr Z and Dr Wander -- more information available on the NEW site but access or mention to that site is blocked by Scott -- email one of the docs for more information

Dorothy on 11/28/03 at 02:10 (138860)

I clicked on the address and it appears that it is a new website with the moderators being Marie (you know Marie here) and Dr.Davis (you knew Dr. Davis here). They have apparently linked up in some way to start their new website. Maybe that is what Scott R was referring to earlier when mentioning efforts to destroy this/his website. Sharon W. and Max K. are also there apparently, at least those names are shown. I don't know if this is something to be concerned about or not. It seems to me that Scott R is being generous in letting that group post information here about their website - even though they claimed that he was blocking informtion; he obviously is not blocking it because he published the URL. I don't know what Scott's relationship is with that website, if any.

May I say, Dr. Z and Dr. Wander, I don't know anything about websites or about this website or about how doctors participate - but I do hope that you realize how valued you are to so many people here. If you feel like you need more assistance, I hope there are ways that more doctors can be brought 'on board' to assist you here. You provide a wonderful service.

Re: Dr Z and Dr Wander -- more information available

Scott R on 11/28/03 at 08:42 (138863)

I let them post a link to the new messagbe board twice. I personally did not like the pop-up ads. The troll that caused (and still causes) so much trouble here is constantly trying to advertise that message board on this message board because i am not able to place any blocks on him there. I expect he has already created several identities for himself on that message board already. I do not want this message board become an advertising medium for another message board. It could split the number of people posting to either message board in half and/or make everyone interested in all things heel pain to have to check two message boards everyday. The troll obviously isn't going to follow the rules of anyone's message board or he would have listened to the other message board moderator when she said don't advertise her message board here.

Re: In defense of the new board

Ed Davis, DPM on 11/28/03 at 12:08 (138871)

Dorothy and Scott:

I believe that it is important to set the record straight on this issue for fairness to all readers. First of all, Scott, you are welcome to post on the new board. That is true for all who post on this board. I realize that you may not want to as you view it as a 'competing' service.

I believe that, about a little over a month ago, 2 groups of posters came to an impasse so a break was necessary. Scott, in my view, was clearly on the side of the opposing group. It was thus better for everyone, including Scott that the two groups go their separate ways. Without this action, there would have been ongoing squabbling without an end in sight.
I am convinced, that there exist some, who have a perverse pyschological need to maintain a state of animosity -- I don't feel that Scott is one of those but feel that there may have been one or two individuals with that need influencing Scott's thinking on the matter.

The other board, and site that will be connected to it operates under a different set of rules. Those are rules that many of us feel compfortable with-- perhaps not one's that others would. At least there is a choice.

ScottR, your comments about the outsourcing issue are very well taken and I think are very valid. There is a trade off we had to make. Such trade offs present exactly the problems ScottR has mentioned. What we get back, as a 'plus' in the trade is that the board requires registrations, and as such, limits 'hit and run' posts and problems with 'trolls,' spammers and others who may be considered disruptive to the board.
We are largely dependend on the 'skills' of the people who things have been outsourced to, to control such potential problems. I am a aware of a definite hacker who had changed 'fonts' on Scott's book but that was quite a while ago. On the other hand, the so-called more recent 'trolls' are getting fewer here and may represent some remnants of the many who were either 'blocked (formally)' , purged, run off, offended into leaving or whatever. Many who left were prodded and goaded so don't be surprised if some decided to take an occasional parting jab. If anything, giving those individuals a new place to go should only make them lose interest faster in this site. Unfortunately, without knowing how to reach some of them and their true names, I don't know any way other to reach them other than to assume they may still come by to read this site and find the new site via a post -- so not allowing a link has both advantages and disadvantages to Scott. Some early attempts at forming a link were blocked.

You may note that the manner in which the boards are divided are different. We have a 'coffee house' for 'chit chat' and support but we also have a board for 'hot topics.' That 'division' solves a longstanding issue that existed on the social board here. I thought that a reasonable compromise was provided by ScottR but some would not tolerate the compromise. Now, that is where many of us took issues with Scott. Scott, we felt, was gracious in providing the compromise, but when some seemed determined to make the compromise not work, Scott took their side instead of defending the compromise.

Scott, you built your site based a combination of personal experiences, 'blood and sweat,' and collective information garnered from hundreds of posters and thousands of readers. You don't display a 'hit counter' and am still not sure why. The thing I have oft emphasized to you is that you have far more readers than posters which such a counter demonstrates and it is important to satisfy the readers, not just the posters. I can testify to that as I was an occasional reader almost two years before I made my first post. Readers must feel that they are in a friendly environment, and I am sorry to say, Scott, you have too often made decisions based on the wants and advice of a small band of hard core posters who, I assume, you get more than enough email from. I was most pleasantly surprised to see you stand up for the integrity of your site and a particular poster (King).

As for the near future, going separate ways, is the only thing I can see.
ScottR, if you have a change of heart, let us know and we can discuss things -- perhaps merging the new board/site back into yours, simply giving you a bigger and better site. Believe me, I have very little time and desire to construct and run a website and have my hands full with other things. I do so for those that have been disenfranchised from this site, readers, posters and professionals such as myself and BGCPed.

Re: In defense of the new board

Dr. Z on 11/28/03 at 13:51 (138881)

A combination of the good, bad and the new would be a great solution. I kind of like some of the Dr. Ed format sections. . I also love heelspurs.com. Sure wish we could just have one board with some small changes . The coffee section appears to be a neat idea.