Establishing General Submission Guidelines
An issue has come up that we need your feedback on.
Due to the fact that Dr. Rob is getting a number of questionable requests for membership (spam blogs, empty blogs, blogs under construction), I propose that we establish a set of General Submission Guidelines to clarify what we consider an appropriate healthcare blog.
With this idea in mind, I collected some examples of how blog directories accomplish this goal. (The following are not exact quotes… just composite examples.)
Here are Some Typical Age Requirements:
Because of the large amounts of spam we receive, your blog must be at least 3 months old and have a minimum of 10 posts.
Your blog must be at least 6 months old and have at least 6 posts in the last 3 months.
If you’re site is unfinished wait until your blog is complete before suggesting it.
Must be an active blog, at least six (6) months old, and must be original content.
One Example of General Requirements:
We do not accept blogs that consist mainly of affiliate links, sell illegal products, offer pirated software, are under construction or only have one post. We do not accept adult blogs or any other blog that is not deemed to be family friendly.
******
Possible Guidelines We Can Use:
Not being completely happy with the above examples, I’ve come up with a tentative list of general requirements for your consideration and feedback.
General Submission Guidelines:
- Must be a real blog
- Must be a healthcare related blog
- Must be at least six (6) months old
- Must have a minimum of 10 - 15 posts
- Must be an active blog (not dead or “under construction”)
- Must contain original content
- Must not be automated, script or “robot” generated
Additional options or suggestions: (Just brainstorming here)
- Must respect copyright and intellectual property rights
- Must be family friendly
- Must not contain adult or pornographic content
- Must not be selling illegal products
- Must not display gambling, offshore pharmacy, adult advertising
Here’s Where You Come In
What you think of the above proposal?
Do you have any additional ideas?
Do you have any additional suggestions for guidelines or thoughts on the above list?
Let us know what you think.
14 Responses to “Establishing General Submission Guidelines”
said on July 24th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
I like your final list. Only three items would I question.
# Must contain unique, original content
Drop the word unique. I don’t think you can define “unique” unless you are using it as a synonym of “original”. Besides, repeating old ideas can be very creative.
# Must not be automated or “script” generated
What does this mean? No dynamic blog software like Word Press? Why not?
# Must respect copyright and intellectual property rights
Sounds good, but how do you interpret “fair use”. I think you will need a lawyer to do this unless you define “respect” as specifically including “fair use” and let the owners of the media quibble over what is ” fair use”.
said on July 24th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
I have two healthcare related blogs, one for NICU Parents and one for Grief, loss and bereavement (a new blog for an old website.
I was very excited to see the Medical/Healthcare blogger code of ethics (I was involved in the early days of the Internet with our Journey of Hearts site with Medical Internet Ethics)
If you use the criteria that the site must be at least six months old, both of these medical/healthcare blogs will be excluded.
If you use the criteria that the site must have a minimum of 10 - 15 blogs, the sites will be included.
The NICU Parent Site has 45 postings. The Grief, Loss & Transitions blog 14. We’ll have > 15 by the end of the week.
You *may* not want to make these two criteria mutually exclusive.
Thank you,
Kirsti A. Dyer MD, MS, FT
Physician, Health Educator
NICU Parent Support Blog
http://nicuparentsupport.blogspot.com
Grief, Loss & Transition Blog
http://grief-loss-info.blogspot.com
said on July 25th, 2007 at 3:51 am
Some good comments so far.
Let me clarify a couple of points:
“Must contain unique, original content”
Good point, dave. The word “unique” probably isn’t necessary. Purpose of this point is that the blog should be — for the most part — original content written by the blogger. Not just material copied from somewhere else.
“Must not be automated or “script” generated”
This is not referring to blog software. This is referring to automated “robot” software that can auto-post for you.
“Must respect copyright and intellectual property rights”
Fair use laws already cover what is permissible with respect to intellectual property rights. Making the above a guideline for application does not alter that in any way.
All three of the above points are meant to advise spammers that fake blogs need not apply.
One Thing To Keep In Mind
Dr. Rob has already stated elsewhere that we (as a group) are not planning on becoming the medblog police. Simply stating that we respect other people’s property rights should not be offensive to anyone.
This is a code of ethics, after all.
comfortdoc: The age and post number limits are meant to discourage applications from empty blogs. They don’t exclude anyone.
They merely request that you wait until you have an established blog before you apply. This should not present a problem to anyone.
Again, the purpose of these guidelines is to discourage fake blogs from applying to carry the Code of Ethics logo.
Dr. Rob doesn’t need to be wasting his time evaluating junk. The guidelines are meant to discourage worthless blogs from applying for membership.
If you are an established medical blogger and everyone in the medblog community already knows who you are you aren’t going to have a problem getting accepted.
The entire purpose of this project is to protect healthcare bloggers.
The purpose of the guidelines is to make Dr. Rob’s (or whoever is evaluating the applicants) job easier.
said on July 25th, 2007 at 3:58 am
Like I said, good comments. You’ve both raised some valid points and this will help in honing the guidelines into something workable.
I won’t be the one making the final decisions. So keep the ideas coming.
- Dean
said on July 25th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Yes, the problem that I saw was twofold:
First was that I was getting commercial blogs that posted with the intent on just selling a product. The blog was really a ruse to get people to get interested in a product. Even with full disclosure, it seemed to me to be something that crossed the line with respect to the code.
The second was, as Dean spelled out, the inclusion of blogs that used secondary content (or ’script generated’ content). How can they say they adhere to a code of ethics when they are not producing most of the content? It seems impossible.
I just wonder if these need to be set forth in stone, or if they can be guidelines we use when we peak at a site and decide if it is OK for it to display the code. I think we should have them written down so that when I or someone else respond to a request negatively, I can site the criteria. It is important to have some structure.
That is why I wanted Dean to post this.
said on July 25th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Hi Dean:
Just curious where you found those example submission guidelines. It would appear that somebody is using the BOTW Directory guidelines…
said on July 25th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Hi greg,
I visited a couple of dozen directories. All were different. I didn’t run across anyone using duplicate guidelines.
said on July 26th, 2007 at 1:45 am
I’m a big advocate of “set in stone” guidelines because of accountability issues and the guidelines you proposed seem fair and reasonable as a starting point. Similar to the HON reasoning, we’re trying to weed out the rif-raf, nothing more, and give us something to fall back upon should someone say “hey, why didn’t I get ‘approved’”.
We have a cool logo and a set of principles that we can now proudly stand behind so having writing guidelines we can point to makes good sense.
said on July 27th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
I’d say that the age of the blog could be a guideline/ number of posts could be an and/ either/ or proposition. Some excellent blogs won’t be up to 15 posts in three months, but there may be a consistent posting pattern just the same. Some excellent blogs may be more youthful, but have an incredibly dynamic posting rhythm and already have a substantial amount of traffic.
Then again, I’m the literature major among us, where everything is mutable; I may be oversimplifying the matter.
said on July 27th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
I’d say that the age of the blog could be a guideline/ number of posts could be an and/ either/ or proposition.
Sigh… what I meant to say was…
“I’d say that the age of the blog / number of posts could be an and/ either/ or proposition.”
This is why I always told my students to have someone else proofread their work. Self-editing can lead one to overlook glaring errors.
said on July 28th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
OK:
I agree that there must be clear guidelines set. The must, however, only be guidelines. There will be some exceptions to any rule eventually. We can say that an English language blog is essential, but what if a blog does part in English and part in French (I have one such person interested already). With translation tools on browsers, you can at least check to see if the integrity of a blog is consistent with the guidelines.
I would certainly say that in general, the blog should have at least 3 months (I wouldn’t say 6) and/or 15 posts.
The biggest problem for me is the possibility of the code being usurped by people who want to use it for their marketing advantage. I want this code to be for and by bloggers.
I also like the idea of featuring a site on a regular basis. When new bloggers come on board, we can run a post that talks about their blog and what it is about. This would increase the visibility of the blog and would also increase the visibility of the code, as people go to it to learn about new medical blogs.
I am very frustrated presently by the limitations of Blogger, however. I left it for Wordpress on my own blog, and I am starting to wonder if I shouldn’t do it with this one as well. Dean had some very good ideas about ways to enable people applying for right to display the code, but I see no way of doing that in Blogger.
said on August 17th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
I’m a little late to this party, but thought I’d chime in, nontheless.
I agree with 3 months being a minimum, but favor the “AND” over the “OR” regarding # of posts. Otherwise, I could easily start a blog, churn out 15 posts in the next 2 days, and then be eligible. And if it is done this way, then maybe use 10 as a minimum. If someone posts once weekly, in 3 months they’ll only have 12.
Must be a “real blog”. How is that defined?
“Active blog”: I suggest operationalizing that definition, such as “Must have at least one post in each of the last 3 months” or “Must have at least one post in the last 35 days.”
“Must respect copyright and intellectual property rights.” I am in favor of either getting rid of this or qualifying it in some way. There is too much room for interpretation. For example, Rob listed some examples of requirements, without attributing them to specific authors. Is that respecting rights? I include song snippets sometimes at the end of our podcasts, with attribution to the artist and links to iTunes or eMusic to buy the song. We did not get permission. Is that Fair Use? Does it respect rights? I personally feel uncomfortable with the current guideline as written.
Oh, one last thing, is there discussion elsewhere about how this code complements/augments/replaces similar codes, such as HON? I admire you for taking this on, as it is needed, but I have not spent much time thinking about how such a code protects bloggers. I do recall looking at HON some time ago and thinking that our blog wouldn’t make the cut, though I forget why (might be because of need for full name and next review date, or something similar).
Thanks!
said on August 17th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Roy:
Check out the “Get the Code For Your Blog” page. It is the result of this discussion. The bottom line is that we just want some criteria by which to judge blogs. This is not the code itself, but a way in which we can exclude blogs that don’t meet what we are going after. If we have commercial sites or sites that are just “link farms”, then the code will be meaningless. I would rather police on the front end than later.
Regarding the HON code (which I mysteriously did qualify for - I guess they like llamas), I feel that the HON code is too exclusive and more oriented toward scientific websites. Medical bloggers need a way to define the rules by which they are blogging (both for the sake of the blogger and for the reader). The goal of this code was just to put in writing for bloggers the rules. It saves us all having to reinvent the wheel for our own blogs. Most of these things are things we are doing or feel should be done anyhow.
Makes sense?
said on August 20th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Thanks, Rob. That’s helpful and make sense (except the IP rights bit). And thanks for fixing the sidebar for us. Keep up the great work.
Leave a Reply