2007 Medical Weblog Awards Sponsored by ScrubsGallery.com: Meet the Winners!

I am honored to have won these two awards, especially because of the very high regard I have for the other blogs in both categories (which I regularly read). It is clear that social media outlets like blogs are now important parts of the discussion and debate around health care issues, and I appreciate the support and encouragement and participation I get from my many readers.

It was a huge honor to be a nominee, and an even bigger honor to win, especially considering the very strong competition. Thanks to everyone who voted, and let's all keep doing our best to strive for excellence in serving our audiences! I'm inspired every day by mine to find the best resources for them.

I am sincerely honored to have won the Best New Medical Blog award this year... and thanks so much for hosting, MedGadget team! I promise to continue to offer "a very human approach to medicine" in the years to come. I hope that my blog will encourage patients and health care professionals to channel their inner "voice of reason" in the midst of this broken system. It's can be dark out there - so let your little blog lights shine!

Congrats to all the nominees and to the award winners! Also, kudos to the Medgadget team for putting this together and for its growth each year. I can't wait until next year!

Thank you for the honor and for all who supported our blog. Congratulations to the winners and nominees and to everyone out there who spends their personal time writing such informative posts. We are looking forward to another interesting year. Good luck!

A hospital CEO takes two medical blogging awards? No one else finds this odd or strange?

I've got to wonder who the readers/voters really are this year. For my own part, I didn't see the point in voting. The decks seemed stacked . . . this result would indicate even more so than I thought.

In the interest of "transparency" (speaking in terms of how hospitals are run and doctors are treated by some of Mr. Levy's compatriots), I'd like to share some previous thoughts on this particular blogging contest: http://drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/2008/01/namby-pamby-noncommittal-crap-in-search.html

My congratualtions to the winners.

In times like these, I really miss Flea.

Gene left the follwowing at my blog (on an unrelated post) and instead of publishing it there (out of context) I'd like to respond here:

"Regarding your comment on Medgadget...

You left a comment on Medgadget's Medblog Awards, and frankly, you should consider what you write before you write it. You have basically accused us of rigging the vote, and you've done it without evidence. Your "hunch" has turned into a full scale accusation.

I understand that what I say probably plays little to sway your self-formed beliefs, but we did not manipulate the results in any way and are troubled by it being so easy for you to accuse us of it.

Please consider the fact that its much easier to write an accusation than to run a fair online poll with dozens of blogs."

Gene, first, I have e-mail. You know something of bloggin etiquette (I leaned the hard way when I first dived in). It might have been more appropriate to use e-mail to "respond" to my comment (instead of hijacking an unrelated post).

Second, I consider what I write very carefully.

Third, you sound like a dime-store lawyer. I did most certainly did NOT "accuse" you/MedGadget of "rigging" anything. I am simply wondering who is doing the voting in a poll like this. You spoke of "evidence". It would be nice to see some numbers. Who among the voters determing the "best" medical blogs are actually doctors? Nurses? Administrators? Patients? Lawyers? Who among the voters actually author blogs - and post regularly. Who are commenters?

I don't think it would "ruin" anything to know. It might help enhance our understanding of these online polls.

Over the last year especially, I have noted that the corporate world (in which I obviously had a very bad experience with a hospital CEO), has taken note of blogs . . . particularly medical blogs. And I am disturbed by some of the subtle trends I am seeing in the way public dialogue is being manipulated by corporate entities and organizations (particularly newspapers) touting "transparency".

I also am very bothered by some of the more established medical bloggers . . . particularly an "aggregator" like Kevin (and especially those who speak of pulling back veils) . . . marginalizing bloggers and commenters if they don't like what they say. Kevin, for instance, has corporate sponsors. Some of us (rightfully) look at that very skeptically.

Mary,

You have fair points about wondering how honest a lot of these votes are. Some people might have voted for their brother's blog, but they don't read it themselves. But we'll never know that because this is the open Internet, and we can't verify whether you are a doctor, nurse, or CEO, so all votes count the same. All we know about who voted is their IP address, what country that IP address is in, time of vote, and who they voted for. As long as the IP addresses are unique, we count the votes.
Our judges select an obviously quality group to vote on from hundreds of nominees, and I believe there is a good representation of the medical blogosphere. We think the bloggers participating in these awards are of high enough caliber not to have to rig the vote to raise their stature.

Gene, you have more faith in the human race than I do.

You could ask voters who/what they are when they vote. Of course, then they could lie. I know something of that too . . . my "high-caliber" hometown hospital CEO had the art of character assassination via flat-out lying and cheating down-pat.

Respectfully, there's nothing to stop your online poll (and thus your awards) from becoming the blogging equivalent of American Idol. And this year's results really make me scratch my head.

The medical blogging world might as well be just another HMO for the suits to conquer.

Who is Dr. Mary Johnson?

Just the ghost of public-service roadkill in the path of a small-town hospital CEO who thinks he rules the world - because no one who regulates/polices anything medical in North Carolina has told him he doesn't.

Hit the link and read all about it. Really pull back that veil.

And who is Fred?

Mary,

Just because you have a personal problem with a CEO of some hospital, doesn't give you the right to rain on everyone's parade because there is a CEO (of another hospital!) in the running. If CEO's make you unhappy, please continue discussing it on your blog. Do not tie your personal issue, which has nothing to do with us, into these awards which are undoubtedly presented to deserving parties.

Thanks

Gene, very respectfully, I am not "raining" on anyone's parade. I've visited most of the blogs that won/were nominated and they're good blogs. But I am (1) questioning methodology of your contest (something we doctors do in medicine), and (2) asking legitimate questions about who is actually voting.

You, yourself admit that my questions (which I am admittedly prompted to ask because of my own horrific personal experience) have merit.

The winners are winners and they should enjoy their awards. Bravo and all that. But they should also take their wins with a grain of salt.

For instance, in the last few days on my blog, I've posted on the fact that many blogs (including many medical blogs, mine included) are BLOCKED by hospital or corporate systems. Doctors/nurses/other professionals are not deemed (by "Big Brother" types - like Mr. Levy) to be professional or mature enough to even read these blogs during breaks during the day. But (last time I looked) corporately-sponsored Kevin is not blocked. Neither is Mr. Levy (a hospital CEO). It speaks to a bias. It speaks to agenda. And again, it speaks to who might be voting in this contest (something that, at this point, you admit you have no control over).

Here's another thought. What is blogging besides talking about one's "personal problems" and third parties? Many people in the "medical" blogosphere blog anonymously. I simply sign my name.

Hi Mary,

We don't block blogs at BIDMC. Plus, anyone can start one, of course. The internet is free and open.

My blog is not on the hospital website. I run it independently on Blogger.com, just like thousands of other people.

I don't know why you referred to me as a "Big Brother"-type, but that proves that anyone can say anything they want in this medium.

By the way, I always sign my name, too. I think it is good form to do that. But, I respect the fact that some people don't want to. So, I allow anonymous comments on my blog.

Paul

Paul, I appreciate hearing directly from you. Based on my own experience (and I do get around), your hospital would be atypical in not blocking blogs. Referencing my observation that many hospitals apparently believe that professionals cannot manage their time/curb their Internet impulses, I'm curious. Do you blog/read blogs on "hospital time"? And do you think it's right for hospitals to block blogs - particularly medical/doctor bloggers? Do you think it might be a good thing if next year, medGadget did more to define who is doing the reading and voting?

I could also ask you if you've visited my blog - and if you think (as a CEO) that what one of your own did to me (for basically blowing the whistle on bad care) was ethical/acceptable. But it's off topic, and we would not want to rain on anyone's parade.

If the "Big Brother" remark offends, I apologize. But let's be real. You are a CEO. And in my travels I have encountered some real tin-gods. Just as, I'm sure, you've crossed paths with doctors you'd just as soon not have.

Yes, anyone can say anything they want in this medium. In the Greensboro, NC blogosphere (where I cut my blogging teeth . . . and which I entered at the invitation of a local newspaper editor in 2005 . . . after being lured in by the hope/lie that "citizen journalism" might make any kind of difference in the corruption and good-ole-boy garbage that permeates much of the medical landscape in North Carolina), I've been called just about every name in the book . . . mostly by people who did not have the guts to sign their name even as they trashed mine. That is why I moderate comments and do not allow anonymous commenters.

We all bring different life experiences to the medical blogosphere. No one's is more legitimate than another's. When Gene here dismisses my "personal problems", he's marginalizing a voice he needs to be listening to. That's what irks me so about Kevin's site. I've been literally begging Dr. Pho for YEARS to link me on his blogroll . . . if only to pump up public exposure of my situation (which might educate some of the young ones - especially those considering public service - as to pitfalls they might avoid). He has blown me off. And I believe it's in deference to his corporate sponsors.

If you "embrace" all medical bloggers, then embrace them. If you really want to pull back that veil, then show some respect to those of us who are yanking the cord in this blogosphere because going through all the "right" regulatory/legal channels in the real world has not worked.

And by the way, congratualtions on your win.

Thanks, Mary. I guess I have a more live-and-let-live attitude about the blogosphere. We are all entitled to write whatever we want, but none of us have an obligation to link to or publicize any other particular person's blog. We also are entitled to ignore or adopt issues people bring up on their own blogs. We can each try to be interesting or persuasive, but that's as far as it goes. This virtual world is a far throw from licensed TV or radio stations -- or even newspapers -- where there might be a legal or professional-standard driven imperative for "equal time."

So, while I am sympathetic to your desire to get people to engage with your issue, there is not much you can do to make it happen -- except be really persuasive.

By the way, it is not that your characterization of me offends me. It just struck me as odd that you would choose to do so without knowing about me, my own values, or my approach to managing. And it really isn't a good way to persuade me or other CEOs to your point of view. For those of us growing up with the novel 1984, "Big Brother" means something very, very sinister, and I doubt if most CEOs would be inclined to feel warmly after being called that.

I wish you well in your quest and good health, as well. Thanks very much for the congratulations. I hope you, too, tune in to my blog and vote for me next year (if I am nominated!)

[Inappropriate - deleted by admin]

Accusations of malfeasance, fraud, vote-rigging and corruption -- about an awards show which doesn't even have an interesting category (still no "Worst health care blog")! and which is sponsored by a blog which itself caused one of the more interesting blogging scandals of 2007.

I love it. Surely entertainment tonight is around the corner, what with the writers strike and all

congrats to the winners. i was under the impression that you could vote multiple times, and i exercised that right to vote for my two favorites multiple times. unfortunately that didn't make them win--(dr wes and happy hospitalist). i probably voted 10-15 times each for them from various computers. i am a private practice doc in the midwest.
i am sure there are people with more time and a better memory who may have voted for their own favorites more frequently! thanks for running the competition.

How to you go about applying for the Medical Award?

At the end of every year, we open the floor to nominations, and your blog can be submitted as part of that. Thanks for inquiring.

Hi

How to apply on this year for medical award?

Not a new question: How does one get nominated for your 2008 medical blog award?

http://acountrydoctorwrites.wordpress.com

Nominations are accepted at the end of the year, usually last three weeks of December. We will make a formal announcement around that time, and you can participate then. Serious blogging until then...