FOR ADMINISTRATION ONLY

Recap of events:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpqdaz6EvPQ

JOHN, IF YOU BELIEVE THE 4/5/11 RATING IS REAL, WHY WONT YOU REINSTATE IT?

CONTINUING..

EXAMPLE 3

**PLEASE NOTE THIS PATIENTS REVIEW WAS TAGGED AND REMOVED AS SPAM**

i apologize for the end where it is difficult to see the patients handwritten documentation..i can provide originals if need be.

http://youtu.be/Y4XweSQQerU

john,

youve ignored the pleas of now 2 patients who have clearly identified themselves via video documention to you...

is this not a site for ratings by the patients, for the patients?

and what about respect? do you respect those who use this site, like my patients in the videos?

your silence is not "helpful"...should i take it as an admission of guilt?

I won't reinstate it because it's our policy to remove both ratings when someone posts twice.
I'm not going to make an exception in this case.

If this is the case, and human nature being what it is, this must result in a multitude of instances where multiple attempts at submitting reviews have resulted in no review surviving, particularly when a patient attempts to replace a now missing review (or even update a previous one). That serves to do nothing more than to leave the submitter not knowing what happened to their review, adding to their frustration.

Technical aspects of review submission should not form the basis of the final analysis in assessing the validity of a review. An algorithm which targets suspicious reviews can be an effective tool, but it should not be a replacement for good judgment and effective dispute resolution. Of course, that would depend on effective communication.

Relying on technology would, and it appears that it does, serve to invalidate real, genuine reviews, as concluded by none other than yourself, even when very clearly explained by numerous physicians and patients who experience first hand their reviews disappearing.

In the end this all comes back to your faulty process of processing submitted patient reviews.

**2ND REQUEST**

John,

Can you please address this example below that I posted last week? Thanks

.

Todd, our system thinks the same person posted this rating back in 2009:

"Ref. by R. Kushner and I will continue to take my daughter there forever! (Or at least til they kick me out.) I feel SO at ease & at home with Dr. Todd it's great. Dr. Todd, Betty, and Tina & staff have always been so kind and wonderful, i wished i worked there too! He provides great care for my daughter. Love him to bits & pieces and he is truely a great gift for caring for kids."

BTW, did you know that healthgrades.com is showing you rated at 3.5 out of 5?

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&gs_nf=1&tok=dcePlk-6a8R8lXb_DPzasA&cp=15&gs_id=4&xhr=t&q=dr.+todd+marcus&pf=p&safe=off&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=dr.+todd+marcus&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=4a9f891eb1c200d7&biw=1366&bih=611

Maybe you can work on them for a while?

John

Or Doctorbase, where he apparently doesn't even have an entry at this time. Or Yelp, where he has no ratings whatsoever as of today: http://www.yelp.com/biz/marcus-todd-s-do-livonia (unless this is the wrong page, of course).

Interesting that a doctor with so many ratings here (47) and Vitals (81, including 5 in one day http://www.[another website]/doctors/Dr_Todd_Marcus#reviews - April 25, 2010) would have zero ratings elsewhere.

John,

On contacting the patient in video example #3 about the possibility of their having posted a review in 2009, they denied all knowledge of having made one. Regarding the unassociated review above, I'll simply say that any patient stating that they were referred by an obstetrician would have presented with a newborn, not toddlers, as is the case of the patient in video example #3 whose 2011 review was removed. I refer you to the video in which the patient clearly states the age of the children she presented as being three and five years of age. Further, at the time the unassociated rating above was made (4/5/09), the patient for whose rating I am seeking restoration, was not yet a patient of mine.

I used to provide my patients with a pamphlet (xerox) referring them to RateMDs.com and Vitals .com to submit reviews. The Vitals reviews provide an average rating of 3.8 out of 4, not 5. Arithmetically, that would equate to 4.75 out of 5 ( http://www.[another website]/doctors/Dr_Todd_Marcus). You might notice that Vitals continues to present my original reviews, which numbered some eighty-plus here, originally.

I appreciate your concern for my ratings at Healthgrades.com.

I will deal with them after I've dealt with you.

Dr. Todd Marcus, has it occurred to you that you are way, way, WAY too fixated on your ratings? I'm serious. You have taken the time to do VIDEOS of your patients stating that they posted these ratings. The first guy looked INCREDIBLY uncomfortable with being in front of the camera. I still cannot believe that you asked that of him. Of any of them, really.

And BTW, when I said that I would need to be a fly on the wall that you could not see....this is not what I meant. I meant I would have to be able to watch you when you didn't know I was there. It was the only way I could think of that would allow me to be objectively (read: not subjective) certain that your ratings were genuine. This...cherry picking of patients to do video testimonials....is not equivalent.

O'Rly? ‘,:} And just how do you intend to 'deal' with John Swapceisnki?

To reiterate something I said earlier in the thread:

http://www.ratemds.com/social/?q=node/56525#comment-219501

Patient Dropped Rating 03 - Reply to John's claim

I'm not sure you appreciate it enough. Healthgrades gets way, way more traffic than RateMDs.com, and every one of their visitors to your page there see that you are a 3.5 out of 5 doctor. Not very good at all.

No need to obfuscate. Healthgrades has no relevance to this discussion. On the other hand, are you suggesting that Healthgrades has a more reliable and honest system than RateMDs?

John

Regarding Katherine's assertion that I spend too much time concerning myself with ratings, what then is the purpose of RateMDs? Should the public be able to reasonably rely on what is posted, or is it just entertainment, like the National Enquirer?

For goodness sakes gentlemen, put the tape measures away.

Maybe HealthGrades has more traffic, but I would bet the traffic to RateMds hangs around longer. People like to read comments. They like to interact with others on a forum. I can’t imagine any other rating sites which had a community of users who continuously returned to interact with each other the way RateMds did in the past. That was extremely unique and something I don’t think you appreciated John. There were often over a hundred guests online, right now there are 5.

Shouldn’t you be promoting your site? You need a PR person if for no other reason than to take the pressure off of you.

Also you are hijacking.

From my perspective it seems the algorithm is programmed such that some legitimate ratings are going down with the ship, possibly for the greater good. If that is an unfortunate consequence then just say so. I am only speculating, because you are really not addressing the issue.

You are not just ignoring one patient of kiddoc’s. The entire world is watching how you interact with the public. That may be an over exaggeration, but that is how you should look at it in my opinion.

Are you suggesting that kiddoc's non-stellar ratings at Healthgrades are more reliable and honest than his ratings here and on Vitals (which he admitted he solicited)?

gagal, you're right: I am trying to hijack this thread because I don't have time to deal with all of kiddoc's complaints.

You are also right that our algorithm does sometimes delete legitimate ratings. If we tweak it so that every legitimate rating gets through, a whole lot of spam will also get through. We're trying to balance it as best we can.

The fact is, kiddoc has 47 ratings on RateMDs with an average of 4.8 out of 5.0. I contend that his listing contains more information than 99% of the doctors on our site, and that the vast majority of people looking for a doctor will be satisfied with reading that number of ratings. In fact, I doubt that most people will read them all anyway.

John

how far would you go to protect your reputation?.. far as health grades goes... its a matter of percentage... for example... one doc in my area has 100 percent would refer to friend/family on health grades , but only 3 people took survey... another has a 91 percent refer rating, but 22 people took survey...Vital has review of a doc in my area which is more of his staff then his capability... its all a matter of interpetation.
I work for a doc who has new patients who say " I found him thru the internet, i researched and he had the most positive reviews". This appears to be a pissin contest between a business man and a medical man who is forced to think like a business man... all in my humble opinion

**3rd Request**

John, my efforts are on two fronts, reputation and my patients' voices.

The removal of any review that does not represent a duplicate in itself amounts to arbitrary modification of not only my ongoing average but the tone of my rating in the words of my patients. Physicians' reputations are built to a large degree on patient word of mouth.

Secondly, when a patient's review is removed, that removes the voice given by the patient. My patients have taken the time to participate in your review process and further, to evidence their participation with video recorded testimony. One has gone so far as to refute your claim of having posted a review twice.

You have stated over the years that RateMDs is about patients being able to voice their opinions, both positive and negative, about their physicians, without interference from those physicians.

You have provided detail of the mechanism by which your system removes subsequent reviews originating from a similar IP address. Should patients suffer loss of their voiced opinion for erring by attempting to update a review through provision of a second submission rather than formally editing the first one, after having gone through the rigors of claiming it if not already linked to it? (I am making reference to your words above, and am not suggesting that my most recent video recorded patient erred in that manner.)

Every process has its weaknesses, especially those which we automate. You state that you are "trying to balance it as best we can" in addressing the incidental deletion of legitimate reviews attributable to seemingly common addresses. If that is so, why do you not take the word of the patient, twice given, who submitted the rating?

Recently, it was stated on the forum that originators of threads would no longer be able to delete them, with the reason being given that other users had expended time and effort in responding(http://www.ratemds.com/social/?q=node/45354). Does that not hold true in terms of patients participating in the review process?

Errors happen. Not remedying them is wrong.

1. 09/13/2011 rating
RateMDs Dropped Rating 01
Resolved (reinstated)

2. 04/05/2011 rating
RateMDs Dropped Rating 02
John claims second rating from same computer on 08/26/2011
Screenshot shows that 04/05/11 rating taken down prior to 04/20/11 screenshot, negating possibility of 08/26/2011 review becoming a duplicate.
Unresolved

3. 09/13/2011 rating
RateMDs Dropped Rating 03
John claims 09/13/2011 rating is a duplicate of a previous 2009 rating
Patient addresses this, stating that she had not been a patient of Kiddoc in 2009 (
Patient Dropped Rating 03 - Reply to John's claim)
Unresolved

Kiddoc

RateMDs Dropped Rating Example 04 - 09/13/2011

RateMDs Dropped Rating 04

**PLEASE NOTE THIS PATIENTS REVIEW WAS TAGGED AND REMOVED SHORTLY AFTER ORIGINALLY POSTED**

Rating reinstated. Thank you

John

Thank you John.

My pediatric patients' parent, Lee Kurche, has recorded a third video request (RateMDs Dropped Rating Example 03 - 2nd Reply to RateMDsJohn's claim) that her 09/13/2011 physician review be reinstated. In the video she asks why no action has been taken by RateMDs following her personal requests.

She states:

"This is Lee Kurche. These are my children right here and this is my third video.
I'm just wondering why nothing has been posted. Why ? Thank you."

What more is needed to permit this patient's review to be included with those of my other patients? Does she not rank equally with others in being allowed to exercise her freedom of speech? Mrs. Kurche has stated very clearly that she rated me on the one occasion.

Apparently, the site's system takes issue with this, "believing" a second review was submitted via her computer, ostensibly by her, something she takes issue with. Is this not the very system that Kat as recent as yesterday i believe, clearly stated:

Are we now taking the "belief" of a bunch of chips and wires over the simple statement of an individual?

Remove, delete, bury, send to the bit bucket, whatever it is that the RateMDs system believes is a secondary submission and reinstate the patient's real and sincere rating!

John, this is not a complicated remedy, and you have the patient's own videorecorded submission of her testimony as to her actions.

What more is needed?

Kiddoc

History:
RateMDs Dropped Rating Example 03 - 09/13/2011
RateMDs Dropped Rating Example 03 - 1st Reply to RateMDsJohn's claim
RateMDs Dropped Rating Example 03 - 2nd Reply to RateMDsJohn's claim
(John claims 09/13/2011 rating is a duplicate of a previous 2009 rating.)