224 karma · joined August 12, 2019
The fact that your "logic" is that extremists like KKK and other rightwing nut jobs are not allowed on twitter and thus have to create their own sites is proof of a double standard is absolutely insane.
You're so busy with your persecution fetish you cannot even see simple reason.
Terrible take.
Actual data analysis shows that at worst conservatives are moderated equally, and at best, less than non-conservatives.
Here's something to chew on: https://forward.com/fast-forward/423238/twitter-white-nation...
Submission: quotes
I'm obviously very biased, but that is exactly what we're building with www.Examine.com
That's exactly what we're doing!
We released version 2 of Examine less than two weeks ago. Here's a page on how to use: https://examine.com/how-to-use/
It's still early, but the entire goal is to break down research on conditions and goals, and where they connect, relate them to interventions.
Any questions, happy to answer them.
We (full disclosure: I'm Sol, co-founder) recently expanded from a focus on evidence-based information on nutrition + supplements to tackling on the bigger picture of health. We've developed our own taxonomy here, with the intention of making it easier for anyone to find and understand their specific health concerns.
I wrote about the process of why we did all this here: https://sjo.com/examine-v2/
Yup - we eschew that.
> Contrast/Accessibility is poor
Not sure I follow - it's black text on white, 400px weight, 20px size.
> After the redesign
Our rankings actually spiked up 2 days after new design.
No 404s - it was a superficial change. Time on site went up. Delivery of content was faster (eg we moved to Cloudflare).
> clickbaity
I keep telling this to people - 90% of our traffic was to our supplement pages. They all had the same format that was very matter-of-fact. We only tried "emotional" title tags in the past year, and they didn't do anything.
> that there is a weakness in on page optimization decisions and general architecture across the site.
I'm honestly not sure I follow. Everything is under the /supplements/xxx or /nutrition/xxx format, and the index is fully available on both root folders. We interlink heavily, and we have our own internal wikicode (so eg creatine is linked as [creatine]) so the link is always accurate as is the tooltip quick summary.
> The backlink profile IS problematic!
We haven't bought a single link ever. We get random links all the time - eg Orlando Sentinel today: https://www.orlandosentinel.com/health/os-ne-health-fake-vit...
> Livestrong
King of crap :)
> But the site could be much better composed and structured.
I'm being honest here - I don't see how. We've asked our users, and the HEM is more popular and should be higher, but we've done tests on usabilityhub, we track user behaviour (eg crazyegg), we've hired UX and UI experts (and other SEO experts). Our customer retention is great. I feel like I'm missing something.
Unlike you, I try to separate my opinions from facts.
As for the myths themselves - we've received over 50,000 emails from our users over the past 8 years. I'm pretty confident we can state those as myths that remain persistent in the nutrition space.
Our HEM specifically mentions kidney function and links to studies that looked at creatine and kidney function.
And so if you end up on https://examine.com/supplements/creatine/ it pretty much blows away all other pages on creatine.
So at the end of the day, you still end up on useful information.
Which is linked in the article.
> lost over 100,000
Sucks. You'd think G would be smart enough to ignore, not penalize.
Negative SEO shit has been going on for over a decade now...
2. Yes, we know this. That is why we note # of trials, size of trial, size of outcome, and quality of trial.
> Success of their business.
Wrong. It's analyzing nutrition research. Here's an example: https://a99d9b858c7df59c454c-96c6baa7fa2a34c80f17051de799bc8...
https://examine.com/supplements/creatine/ - just scroll down.
https://examine.com/supplements/creatine/#effect-matrix - that's not selling anything.
https://examine.com/supplements/creatine/#scientific-researc... - click on 'fully expand' - there's all your science + citations.
And the references themselves have carrots next to each reference so you can click and see what is being referenced...
Here is an example of what IS being sold: https://a99d9b858c7df59c454c-96c6baa7fa2a34c80f17051de799bc8...
And that creatine caffeine page... https://examine.com/nutrition/does-caffeine-counteract-creat... - literally has 7 references right at the bottom. Again, with carrots to see where the claim is.