I reviewed revolutionhealth.com, which won the top award in the health category, and compared it to webmd.com, which didn’t even get an honorable mention. I couldn’t find specific criteria that SEOmoz used to select its winners, so I’m not sure why revolutionhealth got first place while webmd got nothing. I didn’t see a whole lot of difference between the two.
Both sites have consumer reviews on medications (which looked surprisingly similar in format to Amazon.com’s book reviews), doctor searches, blogs, discussion boards, and ways to personalize your experience if you choose to set up an account. Webmd has rss and technorati buttons for sharing, and Revolutionhealth has options to share with digg, stumbleupon, and deli.cio.us. Both sites also have options to rate articles and information on various health topics.
Both sites have ads, although Revolutionhealth has fewer. Revolutionhealth also has a way to clip articles to your MySpace or Blogger account, which I didn’t see on Webmd. In addition, Revolutionhealth articles have some invitation to ask an expert or participate in discussions for further information. I thought this was pretty Web 2.0, in the sense that the website is encouraging interaction with people, rather than just presenting static information.
For library use, either site is useful for patrons to find consumer information (apart from our own website, that is). I liked the interface and design of Revolutionhealth a little bit better, but that’s a personal preference. There’s no reason why libraries can’t review health information websites like these on a blog, wiki, or have it posted on a website. Librarians need to become and be seen as authoritative experts on digital information as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment