Shame on RateMDs.com

I gave honest, polite unfavorable ratings to two MD’s (Ernest Sussman and Christopher Minott). I noticed that both of these ratings were deleted by someone. Who deleted these ratings? This person should be identified and immediately fired. Do you not realize that if someone who uses RateMDs.com to select a doctor, and who has an avoidably harmful experience with that doctor, you can be successfully sued? You have no moral, ethical rite to deliberately deceive people by deleting honest, factual, polite unfavorable MD ratings. Why do you even have a website such as RateMDs.com if you wish to deceive and harm innocent patients?

Shame on you at Ratemds for allowing this to continue.

They are absolutely

They are absolutely ridiculous. They are also deleting honest favorable reviews. They deleted all reviews for our doctor and did not provide any explanation. Ratemds is definitely misleading patients by deleting both favorable and unfavorable honest reviews. I can't wait to see them go down for this. I have an example of how they didn't delete an erroneous review for a physician that was reported to them. Obviously they are picking and choosing and misleading patients and this will certainly be their own demise.

Mark, I assume you mean these

Mark, I assume you mean these 2 doctors:

http://www.ratemds.com/doctor-ratings/31980/Dr-Ernest+M.-Sussman-LAS+VEGAS-NV.html

http://www.ratemds.com/doctor-ratings/30312/Dr-Christopher-Minott-LAS+VEGAS-NV.html

I checked our database and we have not removed any ratings for these 2 doctors. So either your ratings did not succeed in the initial submission process, or you submitted them to a different website. You are welcome to rate these doctors again.
Thanks,

John

We are in the process of a

We are in the process of a class action lawsuit against RateMDs for their practices of taking away positive reviews. If others are interested, please contact me at [redacted]

You have got to be kidding!!

You have got to be kidding!! Well I guess it might get you some notoriety with the end result you lose patients. It's not a precise science - moderators have to make a judgement re which reviews are false - and it's because so many doctors put up fake glowing positive reviews to try and mask the negative reviews, that perhaps one or two genuine reviews get deleted. You doctors already have way too much power and too little info about how good you really are - I for one certainly hope you lose if you are stupid enough to even try a lawsuit.

Juliesmith9999 wrote: You

Juliesmith9999 wrote:

You have got to be kidding!!

That's what I was thinking.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2013/02/06/yelp-defeats-legal-challenge-to-its-user-review-filter/

Doctors might be wise to pay more attention to the quality of care they give patients than what is being said on ratings sites.

Will you also be suing them

Will you also be suing them for filtering negative reviews?

I'm thinking in your class action suit, it would be valuable to include physicians complaining they are seen unfairly in too positive a light.

jjddc1 wrote: We are in the

jjddc1 wrote:

We are in the process of a class action lawsuit against RateMDs for their practices of taking away positive reviews. If others are interested, please contact me at [redacted]

I just checked this particular listing. There were 2 pairs of positive reviews automatically removed. Why were they removed? Because our system believes that each pair of reviews was from the same computer.
BTW, there was no human involvement in this decision. It is a simple spam filter that runs automatically and is applied to every listing on our website. It is used to filter both positive and negative reviews.

John

Good luck with your

Good luck with your lawsuit.Please post the names of the doctors participating so I know which ones to avoid. Thanks!

I just wish the site had a

I just wish the site had a means by which people could edit previous posts. For example, if a patient believed a doctor was good and then was found to be not so, or vice versa, there is no way to change that later. Otherwise the site is excellent.

Rtrp9 wrote: I just wish the

Rtrp9 wrote:

I just wish the site had a means by which people could edit previous posts. For example, if a patient believed a doctor was good and then was found to be not so, or vice versa, there is no way to change that later. Otherwise the site is excellent.

If one registers a user name and logs in with it to submit a rating, they can edit their rating at a later time.

Similarly, posts on the forum can be edited and, until such time as they have been quoted, comments as well.

I gave my honest, negative

I gave my honest, negative opinion on a doctor, and everything was TRUE, two different times, and they were both removed. Everything was 100% true, with no curse words. The message that appeared that said they were removed because of 2 ratings from the same computer, but my FIRST rating had already been removed. That is why I wrote the second rating, and it was also removed. I am the patient who had the negative experience with the doctor, so I should be able to write about it on a website asking for reviews on doctors. It was not rude, but it was TRUTHFUL! RateMDs is not being honest to the patients!

RateMDsJohn wrote: jjddc1

RateMDsJohn wrote:
jjddc1 wrote:

We are in the process of a class action lawsuit against RateMDs for their practices of taking away positive reviews. If others are interested, please contact me at [redacted]

I just checked this particular listing. There were 2 pairs of positive reviews automatically removed. Why were they removed? Because our system believes that each pair of reviews was from the same computer.
BTW, there was no human involvement in this decision. It is a simple spam filter that runs automatically and is applied to every listing on our website. It is used to filter both positive and negative reviews.

John

Have you ever thought, John, that two people are posting comments on the same doctor on the same computer because they are in the same family, and their doctor is their family doctor?

Ratemds, your deletion of

Ratemds, your deletion of negative reviews is getting ridiculous. The latest example is Dr Joseph Ajaka of Australia. He had a negative rating that looked completely genuine, and had been on your site for many many months (it showed as his first review before a bombardment of glowing positive reviews, then a number of further negative reviews). Why was this first review deleted? I think you guys need to treat people's negative reviews with more respect - at least email members before changing their reviews if they have logged in to post a review. Perhaps you should have had a look at the review "unhappy cosmos" gave Dr Ajaka and ask yourself if the negative reviews are real or not. Why not contact "unhappy cosmos" and discuss with her yourself (I have). In fact I've personally been corresponding with a number of very unhappy ex-patients of Dr Ajaka. The bottom line is that if you continue to bow to doctors your site will lose the remaining vestiges of honesty and usefulness - I've certainly lost faith in you after this.

I agree 10000000000000000000%

I agree 10000000000000000000%

Some doctors need their licensed pulled...

Am I the only one who's

Am I the only one who's amused by some of the things within this thread ?

1. ie
- "Who deleted these (negative drs )ratings? This person should be identified and immediately fired."
- "We are in the process of a class action lawsuit against RateMDs for their practices of taking away positive dr reviews."
- soon things got heated/ ppl got fairly worked up

2. - And then in came RateMDsJohn who provided both complainants with perfectly simple and plausible explanations ie system errors . These could have been easily sorted out in the first place if the complainants flagged them via email to System Admin.

PS - I am not trying to be self-righteous or to discount serious issues / distress experienced by ppl . Just having a bit of childish fun.

This is a phoney review site.

This is a phoney review site. All these ratings of Dr Toriumi were recently removed:

* ​10/10/13 1 5 1 5 I had a consult with Dr. Toriumi several years ago and it was ok but I did not feel confident going through with it. Just a feeling I got. However recently I decided to revisit. Was not a good experience and then I remembered why. Doc has a lot of unhappy patients. Every medical office has a personality - the tone of the office is set by the doctor. It is not worth it to deal with them even though I have no doubt this doctor is talented in certain techniques if you are a good candidate for rib grafting. Some of his pics are very good. However there are some bad ones. Some patients just are not a good match for him. With his grafting he made some patients look too masculine and unattractive. Respond

* ​7/31/13 5 4 2 3 Clearly evidenced in the reviews, rhinoplasty with this doctor is a gamble. I have seen him described as a miracle worker and I've seen him described as Dr. Evil. My advice: keep looking. Your face isn't something to gamble with. I went to him with a short, flat nose. He built up and lengthened the bridge, and while I would say that my appearance has been improved, it is FAR from ideal and there have been complications that cannot be ignored. So, I'm in need of revision rhinoplasty. Very scary, especially because he's notoriously unorthodox (which again, he is praised/criticized for) and I have no idea what's going on "in there." My bridge is crooked. From a base view, it swings dramatically to one side. My 3/4 and side profiles are terribly masculine (on an otherwise extremely feminine face - not sure what he was thinking), a lump has formed on one side of the tip (people have asked me if I got bit by a bug!) and my breathing is
pretty severely impaired. Disappointing.

* ​12/18/12 1 1 1 1 Dr. T is a horrible doctor who has no aesthetic ability and makes noses that are lumpy, crooked and dented. He will only try and fix one thing during surgery and he will operate for hours to bill you more money and will fix half of the problem and create 4 more. He is a greedy doctor who just wants to take your money and will leave you looking deformed after he takes all your ear and rib.

9/10/12 1 1 1 1 Here's the thing about Dr. Toriumi. He's a terrible surgeon with no artistic ability. He charges a fortune for ruining your face. He has no aesthetic eye. What he did to my nose is criminal. He made it twisted, crooked, wide, ugly, and so different from my original nose & what we discussed in pre-op that I looked like a completely different person. Did he care? No. Pat Golden begged me to give him positive reviews on this site & others. He gave me "excercises" (pressing on my nose) to do every day (did them every day) & after 1 yr when when my nose was unchanged, he said I must not have been doing my "exercises". He's a nightmare. Furthermore, his surgicenter is unprofessional. The anesthesiologist told me that the nurses were Googling me & gossping about me due to the nature of my work in the public life. That is shockingly unprofessional. Every surgeon I've seen since says "Toriumi ruins faces". Dr. Toriumi is a walking nightmare.
Insurance: Blue Cross / Blue Shield
Paid (or co-pay): $40000

I emailed

and asked for an explanation, he ignored me. Phoney site, misleading patients and causing harm.
Show message history

Frankly, I'd like to see

Frankly, I'd like to see RateMDs (note the MDs) ban all reviews of quacks, or Chiropractors, Naturopaths and similar, who are NOT MEDICAL DOCTORS and have NO MEDICAL TRAINING.

Finally, a voice of reason

Finally, a voice of reason among the chatter. Not to mention that there is likely no shortage of libelous/slanderous comments that the site has a duty to remove, plus threatening comments such as one I read today where the patient alludes to that he will physically assault the doctor if he sees him outside the hospital. I would expect RateMDs to delete such postings.

I have seen such ratings

I have seen such ratings where one person accused a doctor of touching her inappropriately.It is still there!! That said, I joined way back when and my profile was deleted after someone named Katherine (?) accused me of double posting. It was NOT true. I was not given a chance to explain and I was made to create a new profile. This person was both rude and ignorant to me. I agree, I used to look here to check out a doctor, but I can no longer trust the site for such a service.

I did all that and more.

I did all that and more.

elaine001 wrote: I have seen

elaine001 wrote:

I have seen such ratings where one person accused a doctor of touching her inappropriately.It is still there!! That said, I joined way back when and my profile was deleted after someone named Katherine (?) accused me of double posting. It was NOT true. I was not given a chance to explain and I was made to create a new profile. This person was both rude and ignorant to me. I agree, I used to look here to check out a doctor, but I can no longer trust the site for such a service.

There are all sorts of ratings in the database, both for and against docs. The management does not, contrary to the thinking of some, take a position either way. Rather, it is simply trying to provide a voice for patients and for those finding themselves on the defensive, doctors.

Of course, some practitioners may hire management reputation firms to stack their profiles with positive ratings, in much the same light as these firms or the practitioners who hire them may rate their competition negatively.

At best, the system can seek to identify multiple ratings from one IP or MAC address, and perhaps remove those containing terms such as "murdered".

My argument for improvement in the system would be for increased human intervention, with the system supplying a list of ratings at the threshold of rejection.

There is another potential problem, however. Most doctors serve a community, a geographical area. The same can be said for a range of IP addresses provided by any one ISP node to computer users having "dynamic" (non-static) IP addresses. It is quite possible for a user to inherit the same IP address of another person in the same community and using the same family physician. This can create a scenario for a suspected duplicate review.

elaine001 wrote: I have seen

elaine001 wrote:

I have seen such ratings where one person accused a doctor of touching her inappropriately.It is still there!! That said, I joined way back when and my profile was deleted after someone named Katherine (?) accused me of double posting. It was NOT true. I was not given a chance to explain and I was made to create a new profile. This person was both rude and ignorant to me. I agree, I used to look here to check out a doctor, but I can no longer trust the site for such a service.

Elaine, we've been over this. A few times. And I'll say what I said the last time:

Why don't you just link to the original thread?

RateMDs is no longer reliable

"There are all sorts of

"There are all sorts of ratings in the database, both for and against docs. The management does not, contrary to the thinking of some, take a position either way. Rather, it is simply trying to provide a voice for patients and for those finding themselves on the defensive, doctors."

What a load of trash. RateMDs clearly deletes genuine and non-slanderous ratings against doctors at the drop of a hat i.e. if it gets the slightest pressure from a doctor or otherwise decides to on a whim. It is out for itself, and its legal blurbs claiming posts won't be deleted are LIES.

AdventuresOfMyConk

AdventuresOfMyConk wrote:

"There are all sorts of ratings in the database, both for and against docs. The management does not, contrary to the thinking of some, take a position either way. Rather, it is simply trying to provide a voice for patients and for those finding themselves on the defensive, doctors."

What a load of trash. RateMDs clearly deletes genuine and non-slanderous ratings against doctors at the drop of a hat i.e. if it gets the slightest pressure from a doctor or otherwise decides to on a whim. It is out for itself, and its legal blurbs claiming posts won't be deleted are LIES.

Of course, RateMDs acts in its own self-interest, availing itself of the safe harbour provisions of the CDA, something you don't have in the UK. Given that, short of libel or content supporting criminality, there is no pressure a doctor could bring to bear on RateMDs, forcing removal of posted content.

You really should research past legal attempts by doctors at doing as you suggest before demonstrating your ignorance.

Do you care to explain why

Do you care to explain why all of the above ratings of Toriumi were removed? A couple have a slightly slanderous element which could have been easily edited out and a couple are perfectly legal. The time span and different styles/content makes multiple posts from the same IP highly unlikely. No, there is a reason for those deletions beyond the reasons you state, and it doesn't seem likely to be a legitimate one as defined by this site's claimed deletion standards.

AdventuresOfMyConk wrote: Do

AdventuresOfMyConk wrote:

Do you care to explain why all of the above ratings of Toriumi were removed? A couple have a slightly slanderous element which could have been easily edited out and a couple are perfectly legal. The time span and different styles/content makes duplicate posts from the same IP highly unlikely. No, there is a reason for those deletions beyond the reasons you state, and it doesn't seem likely to be a legitimate one as defined by this site's claimed deletion standards.

I don't know why these particular ratings of Toriumi were removed, but it may have been for the same reason that a number of his ratings (as well as those of Richard Ellenbogen) were removed some time ago. That action resulted from mass posting by one person using multiple IP addresses and user logins, sometimes known as "Omega". Part of that story is contained in http://php.ratemds.com/social/?q=node/38049 and http://php.ratemds.com/social/?q=node/37874.

Katherine may be able to provide a link to the thread where it was demonstrated that one person was behind the multiple posts.

That's a poor attempt at

That's a poor attempt at excusing the inexcusable. The above posts weren't by her (Omega wasn't a him). She has moved on since posting about Toriumi. No, those posts were authentic reviews which were deleted for unethical reasons. I repeat, RateMDs is a PHONEY REVIEW SITE.

AdventuresOfMyConk

AdventuresOfMyConk wrote:

That's a poor attempt at excusing the inexcusable. The above posts weren't by her (Omega wasn't a him). She has moved on since posting about Toriumi. No, those posts were authentic reviews which were deleted for unethical reasons. I repeat, RateMDs is a PHONEY REVIEW SITE.

You're jumping to conclusions. I never stated that Omega was a male. My point in citing Omega's ratings was to demonstrate that your comment, "The time span and different styles/content makes multiple posts from the same IP highly unlikely.", while technically correct with respect to IP addressed, is essentially invalid in terms of users employing multiple IP addresses.

I can't speak to why three of the ratings were removed, but the one dated 12/18/12 is removable on its face.

You described Omega as a him

You described Omega as a him ("his") - hardly me jumping to conclusions. As for the multi IP point, it's a moot one. It would be absurd to delete posts on an unsubstantiated and baseless suspicion. So far as the rating you mention, it's a crap review anyway and it doesn't matter that it was deleted. The others, however, have a distinct ring of authenticity, dragged Toriumi's overall rating down and served as plausible warnings to prospective patients. I suggest that either his attorney got them removed (as happens on forums) or the owner of this site has a less than professional relationship with Toriumi - for example they had a conversation at a conference - and removed them out of bias towards him. Your defence of this site is delusional.

AdventuresOfMyConk wrote: You

AdventuresOfMyConk wrote:

You described Omega as a him ("his") - hardly me jumping to conclusions. As for the multi IP point, it's a moot one. It would be absurd to delete posts on an unsubstantiated and baseless suspicion. So far as the rating you mention, it's a crap review anyway and it doesn't matter that it was deleted. The others, however, have a distinct ring of authenticity, dragged Toriumi's overall rating down and served as plausible warnings to prospective patients. I suggest that either his attorney got them removed (as happens on forums) or the owner of this site has a less than professional relationship with Toriumi - for example they had a conversation at a conference - and removed them out of bias towards him. Your defence of this site is delusional.

Read again. I wrote, "I don't know why these particular ratings of Toriumi were removed, but it may have been for the same reason that a number of his ratings (as well as those of Richard Ellenbogen) were removed some time ago." "His" refers to Toriumi, not Omega.

The rating I cited (12/18/12) does not refer to a patient experience, an essential component of any rating. I find it interesting that you subjectively describe the 12/18/12 rating as "a crap review", when accusing RateMDs of taking similar action. My reference to multi IPs is hardly moot; it is one of the primary criteria RateMDs employs in removing ratings.

There is no pressure any lawyer can bring upon RateMDs to remove ratings, save for those which pertain to a legal wrongdoing, such as libel or criminality. I would suggest that you read the CDA which provides a safe harbour provision from liability for webmasters, and pursuant to Barrett vs. Rosenthal, users who republish posts containing libel, in their entirety.

As far as my "defense of this site" is concerned, I am hardly defending anything. RateMDs has its flaws, but you have failed to identify a single one. Thus far, you have done nothing more than identify an error factor, statistically not abnormal on a Web 2.0 site.

I suspect that I know a little more about this site and the subject of Web 2.0 than you imagine. All you have offered thus far are unsupported rants, not that I'd expect more given your demonstrated lack of reading comprehension.

Heh. Fine, I misread to who

Heh. Fine, I misread to who you were attributing the word "his". You picking up on my description of one review as crap is petty pedantry - the last resort of a hollow argument - as the others remain valid. If your posts actually dealt with the substance of my point I'd have bothered to read more carefully. I repeat yet again, three decent and likely genuine reviews over the period of a couple of years have recently been deleted which have resulted in a falsely favourable overall rating for Toriumi and there seems to be no legitimate reason for their removal. Your unwavering belief in the power of this site to withstand legal threats from doctors is naive. Legitimately negative posts against doctors disappear and you simply choose to blindly defend RateMDs.

blevins wrote: I gave my

blevins wrote:

I gave my honest, negative opinion on a doctor, and everything was TRUE, two different times, and they were both removed. Everything was 100% true, with no curse words. The message that appeared that said they were removed because of 2 ratings from the same computer, but my FIRST rating had already been removed. That is why I wrote the second rating, and it was also removed. I am the patient who had the negative experience with the doctor, so I should be able to write about it on a website asking for reviews on doctors. It was not rude, but it was TRUTHFUL! RateMDs is not being honest to the patients!

Note how RateMDsJohn ignores this.

AdventuresOfMyConk

AdventuresOfMyConk wrote:

Heh. Fine, I misread to who you were attributing the word "his". You picking up on my description of one review as crap is petty pedantry - the last resort of a hollow argument - as the others remain valid. If your posts actually dealt with the substance of my point I'd have bothered to read more carefully. I repeat yet again, three decent and likely genuine reviews over the period of a couple of years have recently been deleted which have resulted in a falsely favourable overall rating for Toriumi and there seems to be no legitimate reason for their removal. Your unwavering belief in the power of this site to withstand legal threats from doctors is naive. Legitimately negative posts against doctors disappear and you simply choose to blindly defend RateMDs.

Pedantry? LOL You are quick to reply in a belligerent manner yet slow to recognize your own errors. I am not making any argument, but simply setting out some basic facts which you have overlooked.

You asked me to explain to you why the ratings had been removed, perhaps assuming that all had been for the same reason. I referred to the one for which I could see an obvious reason. As to the others, I don't have access to the details surrounding their submission.

For the second time you have pointed out ratings which have been recently removed in spite of their having been made over a couple of years, adding that there is no legitimate reason for their removal. Do you monitor the surgeon's profile daily? If you don't, you could have very well missed a "legitimate" reason, which you would realize had you read the site's rules.

I hinted twice to you that a little research on your part might benefit you, pointing you at the CDA, precedent in the US courts, and the existence of past attempts on the part of doctors with regard to this site. To use your term, you naively assume that I have taken a position, when I am simply trying to enlighten you as to a few basic aspects of the site's operation, the court tested CDA safe harbour provisions, and a precedent which not only supported the CDA, but extended it to users in certain circumstances.

If you still can't figure out what could have caused those three ratings to be removed, ask.

It was a blog post. Back

It was a blog post. Back when we had blogs.

http://php.ratemds.com/social/?q=node/38556

Katherine wrote: It was a

Katherine wrote:

It was a blog post. Back when we had blogs.

http://php.ratemds.com/social/?q=node/38556

That was a good post. It put a few one aspect of information manipulation into perspective.

Mic - I'm not going to bother

Mic - I'm not going to bother arguing with you, your posts are a load of pompous hot air. I'll just say that, firstly, I stated in my first post that I did ask for an explanation from RateMDsJohn but was ignored, and secondly, you seem to be a man keen to place his faith in the authority of supposed rules; well, guess what, such supposed rules don't stop lawyers challenging them - which requires money to defend! Oh yeah, and I recently saw the deleted posts on Toriumi's RateMDs review page, only to visit a few days later and see them all gone, so no, surprise surprise, I didn't need to check daily. For someone who obviously likes to consider themselves a rigorous skeptic you have a laughably limited insight into this site's possible reasons for deleting seemingly legitimate reviews.

I guess internet message forums get the regulars they deserve. I'm out of here.

AdventuresOfMyConk wrote: Mic

AdventuresOfMyConk wrote:

Mic - I'm not going to bother arguing with you, your posts are a load of pompous hot air. I'll just say that, firstly, I stated in my first post that I did ask for an explanation from RateMDsJohn but was ignored, and secondly, you seem to be a man keen to place his faith in the authority of supposed rules; well, guess what, such supposed rules don't stop lawyers challenging them - which requires money to defend! Oh yeah, and I recently saw the deleted posts on Toriumi's RateMDs review page, only to visit a few days later and see them all gone, so no, surprise surprise, I didn't need to check daily. For someone who obviously likes to consider themselves a rigorous skeptic you have a laughably limited insight into this site's possible reasons for deleting seemingly legitimate reviews.

I guess internet message forums get the regulars they deserve. I'm out of here.

Adventure, my posts are at least based on experience, coupled with factual knowledge. If you'd been subscribed to this forum longer, or perhaps read it more frequently, you'd understand the reason for that, as many others here, do.

I do not consider myself a "rigorous skeptic", but don't let me dissuade yourself from exercising your unbased imagination. As for insight into this site, at least I have some, together with experience, not just observation.

At least you appear to appear to be beginning to grasp what I have been trying to convey to you, that the reviews in question are or may be "seemingly legitimate". I pointed out a few possibilities for their possibly being accepted simply to draw your attention to other possibilities, giving a strong hint to another. That is suggested in your first comment (http://php.ratemds.com/social/?q=node/63642/223922) in its very last line.

I don't imagine John would reply to third parties regarding removed reviews. If you were the submitter of I really was looking forward to your posting screen shots of the removed reviews.

.

.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.