See HERE:  Brennen’s SkeptVet seems to have been slimed by alt med believers on the crowd sourced ratings site Web Of Trust. His ratings are low for exactly those characteristics that make his site so useful: trustworthiness and reliability. For those few who don’t know, Brennen is a long-time Mod here at the Forum and has written articles for Science Based Medicine.

He and his site are some of the most trustworthy and reliable sources for info on veterinary medicine I know. If you agree, go to WOT and help him out.

Done! I registered, rated, and commented there with username ransak.

For some reason people are only voting on the Trustworthiness issue, which leaves Brennen looking bad in the other two areas they rate. Personally, I know no reason why he should have low ratings in any of those areas.

I registered under the name Doc Sarvis, gave Brennan’s site the highest marks, and left a review.

Thanks for the support guys! In a way, it’s probably a good sign that I’ve made enough of an impression for people to coordinate a virtual smear campaign against the site. Still, I wouldn’t want people looking for information on specific altmed topics to be scared off by the WOT rating. There are hundreds of sites selling vet woo, dozens promoting vet alt med ideology, and about five of us offering a critical perspective.

Thanks again!

dougsmith - 20 August 2011 06:39 AM

For some reason people are only voting on the Trustworthiness issue, which leaves Brennen looking bad in the other two areas they rate. Personally, I know no reason why he should have low ratings in any of those areas.

Don’t understand that. I clicked all three with highest rating. Seemed obvious.

Don’t know if it helps, but I also checked the thumbs up “agree” buttons on the good reviews…

Hang in there mckenzievmd.

Doug thanks for the heads up.

Maybe keep us informed how it’s going, as this progresses, since to be honest not having pets, I’ve only visited the site a couple times out of curiosity, but it for sure seemed like the place to go for reliable information.  I’m sure if I were a pet person I’d spend a bunch more time there.

Thanks everybody for the positive ratings and the supportive comments! The site reputation has gone from Very Poor (based on 18 ratings) to Unsatisfactory (based on 45 ratings). Odd that half again as many positive ratings as negative ones still only moves the reputation to the middle of the range, but I think at least that should prevent the automatic warning when someone tries to navigate to the site via Facebook.

Science-Based Medicine only has 95 ratings, so I guess I’m doing better than I thought!

mckenzievmd - 24 August 2011 01:37 PM

Thanks everybody for the positive ratings and the supportive comments! The site reputation has gone from Very Poor (based on 18 ratings) to Unsatisfactory (based on 45 ratings). Odd that half again as many positive ratings as negative ones still only moves the reputation to the middle of the range, but I think at least that should prevent the automatic warning when someone tries to navigate to the site via Facebook.

Science-Based Medicine only has 95 ratings, so I guess I’m doing better than I thought!

I’m not sure that’s the number of ratings; I was assuming that was the ratings number (between 1 and 100). But at any rate it doesn’t really matter; the site should be better rated. If anyone reading this hasn’t given a look and a rating, they should.

I’m not sure that’s the number of ratings; I was assuming that was the ratings number (between 1 and 100).

Of course, that makes much more sense.

I bookmarked the website. Since I have nine cats (And NO mice!) in my home, I have a vested interest in having at my beck and call a source of reliable science based information. Hell, of the Alternative Medicine crowd is slamming it, it’s got to be good!

so how are things going in the website rating wars. . .  er, struggles?

Pretty good. Enough folks rated the site to bring my “Trustworthiness” rating to 65%. Still pretty low, but above the threashold that triggers the “This site has a poor reputation!” popup warning. Sily to be worrying about what some arbitrary, crowdsourced ratings site says, but given the limited access we skeptics have to the media, any impediment is a rpoblem.

Thanks again, everybody, for helping out!!

mckenzievmd - 02 October 2011 02:33 PM

Pretty good. Enough folks rated the site to bring my “Trustworthiness” rating to 65%. Still pretty low, but above the threashold that triggers the “This site has a poor reputation!” popup warning. Sily to be worrying about what some arbitrary, crowdsourced ratings site says, but given the limited access we skeptics have to the media, any impediment is a rpoblem.

Thanks again, everybody, for helping out!!

Glad to hear we’ve made at least a little difference. Anyone seeing this thread for the first time ... take a look and chip in if you agree!