AhmedF

Hark: https://examine.com/conditions/attention-deficit-hyperactivi...

Lets be clear - twitter favors right-wingers - says their own engineers: https://twitter.com/MaxKennerly/status/1588378198168915968

Here we go, hope this helps: https://twitter.com/MaxKennerly/status/1588378198168915968

I said that at best it is impartial, and if anything, is more permissive to conservatives.

The fact that your "logic" is that extremists like KKK and other rightwing nut jobs are not allowed on twitter and thus have to create their own sites is proof of a double standard is absolutely insane.

You're so busy with your persecution fetish you cannot even see simple reason.

Try moderating 100+ hateful messages an hour.

it's trivial to demonstrate that YouTube and Twitter (easy examples) primarily target conservatives with their "moderation".

Terrible take.

Actual data analysis shows that at worst conservatives are moderated equally, and at best, less than non-conservatives.

Here's something to chew on: https://forward.com/fast-forward/423238/twitter-white-nation...

Title: no quotes

Submission: quotes

To summarize: a good version of WebMD would have: * structured, quantitative information * real-time updates * summaries of supporting evidence

I'm obviously very biased, but that is exactly what we're building with www.Examine.com

Here's my point of feedback / wishlist item / thing I think is missing from the world. Examine is focused on supplement

That's exactly what we're doing!

We released version 2 of Examine less than two weeks ago. Here's a page on how to use: https://examine.com/how-to-use/

It's still early, but the entire goal is to break down research on conditions and goals, and where they connect, relate them to interventions.

Any questions, happy to answer them.

Considering a fair number of people on HN use Examine, I figured it may be of interest here.

We (full disclosure: I'm Sol, co-founder) recently expanded from a focus on evidence-based information on nutrition + supplements to tackling on the bigger picture of health. We've developed our own taxonomy here, with the intention of making it easier for anyone to find and understand their specific health concerns.

I wrote about the process of why we did all this here: https://sjo.com/examine-v2/

I am Sol: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Orwell (see previous name).

image heavy

Yup - we eschew that.

Contrast/Accessibility is poor

Not sure I follow - it's black text on white, 400px weight, 20px size.

After the redesign

Our rankings actually spiked up 2 days after new design.

No 404s - it was a superficial change. Time on site went up. Delivery of content was faster (eg we moved to Cloudflare).

clickbaity

I keep telling this to people - 90% of our traffic was to our supplement pages. They all had the same format that was very matter-of-fact. We only tried "emotional" title tags in the past year, and they didn't do anything.

that there is a weakness in on page optimization decisions and general architecture across the site.

I'm honestly not sure I follow. Everything is under the /supplements/xxx or /nutrition/xxx format, and the index is fully available on both root folders. We interlink heavily, and we have our own internal wikicode (so eg creatine is linked as [creatine]) so the link is always accurate as is the tooltip quick summary.

The backlink profile IS problematic!

We haven't bought a single link ever. We get random links all the time - eg Orlando Sentinel today: https://www.orlandosentinel.com/health/os-ne-health-fake-vit...

Livestrong

King of crap :)

But the site could be much better composed and structured.

I'm being honest here - I don't see how. We've asked our users, and the HEM is more popular and should be higher, but we've done tests on usabilityhub, we track user behaviour (eg crazyegg), we've hired UX and UI experts (and other SEO experts). Our customer retention is great. I feel like I'm missing something.

I actually write zero of the content on Examine.com because I'm not qualified to do so. Which you would know if you actually looked at the site instead of arguing in bad-faith with a dash of superiority complex.

Unlike you, I try to separate my opinions from facts.

You should try reading the full article (the myths article links to an article that expounds on each myth) before accusing us of being oversimplified.

As for the myths themselves - we've received over 50,000 emails from our users over the past 8 years. I'm pretty confident we can state those as myths that remain persistent in the nutrition space.

Thanks - I will dig into this.

Thanks - I will dig into this.

Thanks!

We removed rel=nofollow AFTER the rankings went down.

renal doctor.

Our HEM specifically mentions kidney function and links to studies that looked at creatine and kidney function.

We could be cited in a letter, but very unlikely as they would reference the primary research itself.

Fair enough.

The point then is if you search for creatine, you end up on that page not, not the homepage.

And so if you end up on https://examine.com/supplements/creatine/ it pretty much blows away all other pages on creatine.

So at the end of the day, you still end up on useful information.

I mean, we were straight-up plagiarized.

Which is linked in the article.

Ugh - I did disavow for the first time ever.

lost over 100,000

Sucks. You'd think G would be smart enough to ignore, not penalize.

Negative SEO shit has been going on for over a decade now...

With the big search box right on the homepage?

Nope - if anything traffic slightly went up after it went live.

1. This is literally untrue. We consistently say supplementation is last. Exactly one month ago: https://www.instagram.com/p/Bz0tmWZA1CG/

2. Yes, we know this. That is why we note # of trials, size of trial, size of outcome, and quality of trial.

Success of their business.

Wrong. It's analyzing nutrition research. Here's an example: https://a99d9b858c7df59c454c-96c6baa7fa2a34c80f17051de799bc8...

Funny you mention Slatestarcodex as lots of people there are big fans of Examine.com

Yup! We even mentioned MF in our blog post.

Uhh - what?

https://examine.com/supplements/creatine/ - just scroll down.

https://examine.com/supplements/creatine/#effect-matrix - that's not selling anything.

https://examine.com/supplements/creatine/#scientific-researc... - click on 'fully expand' - there's all your science + citations.

And the references themselves have carrots next to each reference so you can click and see what is being referenced...

Here is an example of what IS being sold: https://a99d9b858c7df59c454c-96c6baa7fa2a34c80f17051de799bc8...

And that creatine caffeine page... https://examine.com/nutrition/does-caffeine-counteract-creat... - literally has 7 references right at the bottom. Again, with carrots to see where the claim is.