Should the Drs on the Recommended List be re-evaluated every year or so ?

[Chetman2112]

17 hours ago, NewHare said:

 

17 hours ago, NewHare said:

 

17 hours ago, NewHare said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 30, 2022 by Chetman2112
Removed

[Al - Moderator]

20 hours ago, Henry said:

I'm not talking about him specifically, I'm talking about recommended doctors who only has one or two patient reviews in years. Reviews posted by doctors or clinics themselves I guess helps but isnt this community supposed to be about/for patients, if we search a doctor here and all we are seeing are results posted by themselves, then how is that different from results being posted on their own clinic's website?

 

Are you suggesting we recommend or not recommend Drs based on how many people post reviews of them? All you're going to do is make this forum be filled with paid fake reviews to make Drs look good, so they can be on our recommended list. Once that happens this place is useless.

 

[Henry]

4 minutes ago, BeHappy said:

 

Are you suggesting we recommend or not recommend Drs based on how many people post reviews of them? All you're going to do is make this forum be filled with paid fake reviews to make Drs look good, so they can be on our recommended list. Once that happens this place is useless.

 

Well something needs to change, what's stopping recommended doctors from posting their great results with a good comb over, perfect angles, hair fibres and or photo shops? I'd say that is a useless source of information.

[Al - Moderator]

For everyone who feels this site should review Drs yearly, I say this is already happening. That's what honest, actual patient accounts of their hair transplants are all about. We get real reviews of the Drs. If there seems to be too many verified actual bad reviews we can suggest the Dr be removed and the moderator/owner of the site should make the decision. This is what happened with Dr Diep. If the site owners decide to keep bad Drs then it jeopardizes this entire site and thus their entire income flow, so it isn't in their best interest to keep bad Drs

I know there have been other Drs removed from the recommended list over the years as well for the same reasons, which is that they got sloppy and were no longer producing consistently good results, so it works. Did it take too long for Dr Diep to be removed? Perhaps, but there is no perfect way to ever do this. In fact there were several people still voting to keep him, so it's hard to say if this site should have acted sooner if there are members who post here who are happy with their results from him.

How would you do yearly reviews of every Dr anyway? You can't force people to post reviews. Is it right to remove a Dr simply because nobody posted a review of him/her in the past several months? that doesn't make sense. Sure there is a lot of mention of certain Drs but I've seen that change over time. You get one or two people who post a lot and had a great results and that Dr gets mentions for the entire year about how great they are which keeps more people going to that Dr because the name pops up all the time and the cycle keeps going. Does that mean that Drs who people haven't gotten all excited about aren't performing great work? That's crazy to think that.

 

 

 

[NikosHair]

First up the premise of the question is a red herring.

The site has a policy of continuous evaluation. 

That is the correct process. Too much damage can be done leaving it to a yearly review.

The reason why this and any other similar threads will not result in change is no one knows what the criteria or what the process is for removal.

It's a disciplinary procedure, it should be transparent and available to see.

The Diep case illustrates the lack of process.

Are we to believe the community would have received a vote, had it not been for the reddit mods intervention?

 

[Melvin- Admin]

2 hours ago, BeHappy said:

For everyone who feels this site should review Drs yearly, I say this is already happening. That's what honest, actual patient accounts of their hair transplants are all about. We get real reviews of the Drs. If there seems to be too many verified actual bad reviews we can suggest the Dr be removed and the moderator/owner of the site should make the decision. This is what happened with Dr Diep. If the site owners decide to keep bad Drs then it jeopardizes this entire site and thus their entire income flow, so it isn't in their best interest to keep bad Drs

I know there have been other Drs removed from the recommended list over the years as well for the same reasons, which is that they got sloppy and were no longer producing consistently good results, so it works. Did it take too long for Dr Diep to be removed? Perhaps, but there is no perfect way to ever do this. In fact there were several people still voting to keep him, so it's hard to say if this site should have acted sooner if there are members who post here who are happy with their results from him.

How would you do yearly reviews of every Dr anyway? You can't force people to post reviews. Is it right to remove a Dr simply because nobody posted a review of him/her in the past several months? that doesn't make sense. Sure there is a lot of mention of certain Drs but I've seen that change over time. You get one or two people who post a lot and had a great results and that Dr gets mentions for the entire year about how great they are which keeps more people going to that Dr because the name pops up all the time and the cycle keeps going. Does that mean that Drs who people haven't gotten all excited about aren't performing great work? That's crazy to think that.

 

 

 

You are always the voice of reason, we’re lucky to have you as a member. There’s a big problem with privacy as well that no one is taking into account. Many surgeons struggle to get there patients to allow them to use their results for their own site because they don’t want their images on the internet. It’s even harder to get them to create an account and share their reviews. 
 

Even after all of that, I’ve had multiple members ask me to remove all of their threads, reviews, responses, and even mentions on this forum due to privacy. That’s why I created this thread:

I’m all for making a better process, but just because a doctor doesn’t have patients review them often doesn’t mean they’re bad or not doing good consistent work. If they’re doing bad work, believe me it will be revealed. As unhappy patients are more likely to post a negative review than a happy patient is to post a positive one. 

 

1 hour ago, NikosHair said:

First up the premise of the question is a red herring.

The site has a policy of continuous evaluation. 

That is the correct process. Too much damage can be done leaving it to a yearly review.

The reason why this and any other similar threads will not result in change is no one knows what the criteria or what the process is for removal.

It's a disciplinary procedure, it should be transparent and available to see.

The Diep case illustrates the lack of process.

Are we to believe the community would have received a vote, had it not been for the reddit mods intervention?

 

First of all, the reddit mod had no bearing on the community’s decision.  We were already investigating Dr. Diep on the Wednesday prior to the mod creating that thread, the only thing he did was make it public. 

 

Typically, we do not like to post things publicly like that because it sets a bad precedent.  I believe it was appropriate in that instance given the circumstances. But the process was already set in motion prior to that threads creation.  In fact, you were the only one complaining at the time. 
 

It seems to me you’re just here to argue for the sake of argument. Many members have already caught on. 

[NikosHair]

1 hour ago, Melvin- Moderator said:

It seems to me you’re just here to argue for the sake of argument.

I'm not sure why you are taking this personally. (feel free to message me if you have specifics and I'll make the appropriate adjustments)

It was put out for everyone to consider.

Does anyone know the process for removing a doctor?

If we don't know the process how can we have discussions around improving it?

Can you guide us through the process?

 

Dr Diep case (and why it's kernel to this thread)

The Dr Diep case raised many contentious issues and the fact that threads like this are created means that people still have concerns.

We discovered in the thread that the doctor had NOT been contacted and allowed to make a statement prior to the public vote.

I thought it was unfair and set a precedent for any other doctor that may find themselves removed without representation. (Others have shared that view publicly).

How are people meant to make an informed vote without hearing both sides of the story?

 

Dr Diep is no more - this is about the next Dr Diep - Not an argument, just a grown-up, informed discussion.

 

 

Edited December 30, 2022 by NikosHair

[NikosHair]

Bit off-topic but as you brought up the subject.

Someone once told me, If you find yourself arguing with a random stranger on the net (rather than just having a discussion) then you're wayyyy too invested in the conversation.

EDIT: I've added a thread for discussion rather than derail this important thread.

Don't be like this fella 🙃...

Edited December 30, 2022 by NikosHair