A Modest Proposal

[quiescence at last]

simplistic, and don't mind re-stating for each new questioner, like the informal and interested feeling obtained by the forum chatting process we already have. almost think this thread should be out of the main forum and in an advisory forum, why else would you have advisory members? maybe the thread will be moved. I will now disappear back into the forum.

QAL

[Sleepster]

I think focused threads in their own subforum could enhance the education of interested newcomers.

I agree.

I also believe gentle moderation of such threads could keep them "on target."

That turns out to be an endless chore. Threads drift and nonrelevant stuff gets mixed in with relevant stuff, often in the same post. An example of this is the Success Stories thread. If you can convince our fearless leader that it's worth our moderators' time and effort to do that your idea may be able to take flight.

[Spy Car]

My idea didn't meet with a very positive response when first posted, but I'm giving it a *bump* in hopes that it gets a second consideration.

I think having a sub-forum with targeted and focused educational topics discussing things like the significance of the data points produced by Sleepyhead (by category) would be very useful to news users and would be a resource for Wiki editors as a repository of both collective wisdom and as an insight into the questions newbies

Having an interactive (but focused) area organized around tightly focused topics would be educational and would only advance the Wiki building IMO.

Best,

Bill

With respect to the interpretation of Sleepyhead data, have you considered the alternative -- non-professionals discussing highly technical issues? Possibly with passion, arguing their position from a layman's understanding of a technical subject.  

It appears fashionable today to ignore or devalue the advice of true professionals in favor of internet discussions between well-meaning, but untrained, people. How many people will read an entire thread to see the pros and cons -- and then might have the wisdom to take the right path for them?

I think the current format works just fine and actually acts as somewhat of a filter -- you can take the advice, leave the advice, or most importantly, have discussion points for your physician.

If anything, I would like to see a wiki entry showing various charts, with call-outs, and notations from skilled medical or PSG practitioners. Example: this is the format set-up to make your data look like our examples. Now here is an example of CSR/PB followed by classic advice about treatment alternatives. Now here is an example where the patient might be helped by narrowing the pressure range. There are a limited number of topics.

Considering the variations in human physiology, co-morbidities (other conditions), drug (prescription) drug use ... I think sub-forums are a great idea, but somewhat less important than a well-designed and maintained wiki. Allowing a wiki link to a curated/moderated discussion would also work as a sub-forum.

I don't share a proclivity to denigrate medical professionals. I also know that I'm pretty unsupported my medical plan, aside from being supplied with the necessary hardware to treat my sleep apnea. I appreciate—beyond measure—the support of highly informed posters on this forum. 

I respect the knowledge they share and don't reject it simply because it isn't backed by a degree.

What I'd like is to advance my knowledge base. So I read the forum pretty widely, and glean things here and there.

All that reading has convinced me that the educational purpose of the forum would be advanced for interested/motivated newcomers if there were an educational targeted-by-topic sub-forum where a person could find information (by topic) in a central location. I would certainly read such threads and would find it much more time-efficient than the wholesale thread reading I do now.

I'm sorry that you seem to feel otherwise.

All the advice offered on the forum could be criticized (and wrongly IMO) for being from a lay-man's perspective. If that was a salient point we'd have no basis for existence as a forum. Instead, we have some pretty smart and well-informed people helping others who need the help.

I do think there could be a better way to help motivated newcomers understand things such as the data behind programs such as Sleeyhead, or in the nuances of machine types, at would be useful if they were contained by topic in targeted threads. 

I would find such a sub-forum highly valuable.

Bill

[Spy Car]

Bill,

I think that you are looking at 2 separate scenarios. The first is the person looking for help with his/her particular situation. For that I think that the current forum works well. The second scenario is a person looking for more information on general or specific aspects of sleep apnea and its treatment. A person who wants to learn more about the things he/she is working with. I think that we are trying to make the Wiki into that type of library.

I would like to see good technical discussions put in a separate place to keep them from getting buried under the load of threads and the lack of an indicative title. Originally I thought of a Tech forum but after discussion and reflection I do not think that would work well since the discussions usually start in the middle of a different thread. I doubt if there would be much interest in starting a tech discussion in a separate area. Maybe a Wiki where those types of discussions that occur could have indexed links in the Wiki area.

Just my thoughts.

PaytonA

To date, the Wiki entries (not to be critical) seem to be rather dry and limited to narrow definitions, as opposed to discussing the significance of certain data points etc. Look at RERAs (an example raised by Sleepster) to see the limitations.

An inherent problem with Wikis is they are not very interactive, where targeted threads would be. If a member didn't understand a point in a targeted thread they could ask for clarification.

I also think the questions and answers would aid Wiki writers as a wonderful resource they could draw on.

Much is gained, in my estimation, from the interactive nature of a forum. Adopting a sub-forum of the sort I propose should serve as a compliment to the educational mission of the forum.

Bill

[Crimson Nape]

Spy Car,
After reading your posts, You make a good argument for a topic like this.  Since you know exactly what you would like included, the detail and in  order of presentation,  I suggest that you are the one to create it.  You are as qualified to garner the information in all the posts as anyone else here.  

I look forward to reading your work.

[srlevine1]

My idea didn't meet with a very positive response when first posted, but I'm giving it a *bump* in hopes that it gets a second consideration.

I think having a sub-forum with targeted and focused educational topics discussing things like the significance of the data points produced by Sleepyhead (by category) would be very useful to news users and would be a resource for Wiki editors as a repository of both collective wisdom and as an insight into the questions newbies

Having an interactive (but focused) area organized around tightly focused topics would be educational and would only advance the Wiki building IMO.

Best,

Bill

With respect to the interpretation of Sleepyhead data, have you considered the alternative -- non-professionals discussing highly technical issues? Possibly with passion, arguing their position from a layman's understanding of a technical subject.  

It appears fashionable today to ignore or devalue the advice of true professionals in favor of internet discussions between well-meaning, but untrained, people. How many people will read an entire thread to see the pros and cons -- and then might have the wisdom to take the right path for them?

I think the current format works just fine and actually acts as somewhat of a filter -- you can take the advice, leave the advice, or most importantly, have discussion points for your physician.

If anything, I would like to see a wiki entry showing various charts, with call-outs, and notations from skilled medical or PSG practitioners. Example: this is the format set-up to make your data look like our examples. Now here is an example of CSR/PB followed by classic advice about treatment alternatives. Now here is an example where the patient might be helped by narrowing the pressure range. There are a limited number of topics.

Considering the variations in human physiology, co-morbidities (other conditions), drug (prescription) drug use ... I think sub-forums are a great idea, but somewhat less important than a well-designed and maintained wiki. Allowing a wiki link to a curated/moderated discussion would also work as a sub-forum.

I don't share a proclivity to denigrate medical professionals. I also know that I'm pretty unsupported my medical plan, aside from being supplied with the necessary hardware to treat my sleep apnea. I appreciate—beyond measure—the support of highly informed posters on this forum. 

I respect the knowledge they share and don't reject it simply because it isn't backed by a degree.

What I'd like is to advance my knowledge base. So I read the forum pretty widely, and glean things here and there.

All that reading has convinced me that the educational purpose of the forum would be advanced for interested/motivated newcomers if there were an educational targeted-by-topic sub-forum where a person could find information (by topic) in a central location. I would certainly read such threads and would find it much more time-efficient than the wholesale thread reading I do now.

I'm sorry that you seem to feel otherwise.

All the advice offered on the forum could be criticized (and wrongly IMO) for being from a lay-man's perspective. If that was a salient point we'd have no basis for existence as a forum. Instead, we have some pretty smart and well-informed people helping others who need the help.

I do think there could be a better way to help motivated newcomers understand things such as the data behind programs such as Sleeyhead, or in the nuances of machine types, at would be useful if they were contained by topic in targeted threads. 

I would find such a sub-forum highly valuable.

Bill

I am not suggesting contributors hold a degree in medicine or a certificate as a PSG or R-tech as there are many talented individuals whose actual knowledge exceeds that of a professional in certain areas. And, especially in individual experience. But, I have found that the information contained in wikis tends to be of a higher caliber -- and value -- than is contained in posts which you may never read as they are scattered about everywhere; even in a sub-forum.

I am not denigrating the work of the fine people who contribute to this forum. I am saying that a wiki format better serves the knowledge-seeker looking for specific, credible, and reliable knowledge. And, that there is nothing wrong with the concept of a sub-forum as long as it is curated and moderated -- which takes substantial effort to weed-out non-topic information or information that is clearly in question. The best example I can give is: a recommendation that an ASV might be appropriate without the caveat of a warning to cardiac patients with a low ejection fraction. (and what a low ejection fraction means, possibly with which tests provide the information). It could be contained in a wiki in a single, concise, entry whereas it may or many not appear in the comment string of a forum.

I would much rather read a wiki that says: here is how to make your display look like ours and here is an interpretation of each of the strips, individually and collectively. With special conditions such as CRS/PB show in a strip with call-outs.

The other positive for a wiki is it weeds out the cruft in individual posts and you do not need to repeat the same information ad nauseam for each reply to a newbie or information seeker.

[Spy Car]

Spy Car,
After reading your posts, You make a good argument for a topic like this.  Since you know exactly what you would like included, the detail and in  order of presentation,  I suggest that you are the one to create it.  You are as qualified to garner the information in all the posts as anyone else here.  

I look forward to reading your work.

If it were true that I had the depth of knowledge (of the sort that I aspire to gain in the future) I'd be happy to start the ball rolling. But I'm not qualified to do so as my knowledge-base is limited.

But I have the rest of my lifespan to learn new things.

Bill

[Spy Car]

With respect to the interpretation of Sleepyhead data, have you considered the alternative -- non-professionals discussing highly technical issues? Possibly with passion, arguing their position from a layman's understanding of a technical subject.  

It appears fashionable today to ignore or devalue the advice of true professionals in favor of internet discussions between well-meaning, but untrained, people. How many people will read an entire thread to see the pros and cons -- and then might have the wisdom to take the right path for them?

I think the current format works just fine and actually acts as somewhat of a filter -- you can take the advice, leave the advice, or most importantly, have discussion points for your physician.

If anything, I would like to see a wiki entry showing various charts, with call-outs, and notations from skilled medical or PSG practitioners. Example: this is the format set-up to make your data look like our examples. Now here is an example of CSR/PB followed by classic advice about treatment alternatives. Now here is an example where the patient might be helped by narrowing the pressure range. There are a limited number of topics.

Considering the variations in human physiology, co-morbidities (other conditions), drug (prescription) drug use ... I think sub-forums are a great idea, but somewhat less important than a well-designed and maintained wiki. Allowing a wiki link to a curated/moderated discussion would also work as a sub-forum.

I don't share a proclivity to denigrate medical professionals. I also know that I'm pretty unsupported my medical plan, aside from being supplied with the necessary hardware to treat my sleep apnea. I appreciate—beyond measure—the support of highly informed posters on this forum. 

I respect the knowledge they share and don't reject it simply because it isn't backed by a degree.

What I'd like is to advance my knowledge base. So I read the forum pretty widely, and glean things here and there.

All that reading has convinced me that the educational purpose of the forum would be advanced for interested/motivated newcomers if there were an educational targeted-by-topic sub-forum where a person could find information (by topic) in a central location. I would certainly read such threads and would find it much more time-efficient than the wholesale thread reading I do now.

I'm sorry that you seem to feel otherwise.

All the advice offered on the forum could be criticized (and wrongly IMO) for being from a lay-man's perspective. If that was a salient point we'd have no basis for existence as a forum. Instead, we have some pretty smart and well-informed people helping others who need the help.

I do think there could be a better way to help motivated newcomers understand things such as the data behind programs such as Sleeyhead, or in the nuances of machine types, at would be useful if they were contained by topic in targeted threads. 

I would find such a sub-forum highly valuable.

Bill

I am not suggesting contributors hold a degree in medicine or a certificate as a PSG or R-tech as there are many talented individuals whose actual knowledge exceeds that of a professional in certain areas. And, especially in individual experience. But, I have found that the information contained in wikis tends to be of a higher caliber -- and value -- than is contained in posts which you may never read as they are scattered about everywhere; even in a sub-forum.

I am not denigrating the work of the fine people who contribute to this forum. I am saying that a wiki format better serves the knowledge-seeker looking for specific, credible, and reliable knowledge. And, that there is nothing wrong with the concept of a sub-forum as long as it is curated and moderated -- which takes substantial effort to weed-out non-topic information or information that is clearly in question. The best example I can give is: a recommendation that an ASV might be appropriate without the caveat of a warning to cardiac patients with a low ejection fraction. (and what a low ejection fraction means, possibly with which tests provide the information). It could be contained in a wiki in a single, concise, entry whereas it may or many not appear in the comment string of a forum.

I would much rather read a wiki that says: here is how to make your display look like ours and here is an interpretation of each of the strips, individually and collectively. With special conditions such as CRS/PB show in a strip with call-outs.

The other positive for a wiki is it weeds out the cruft in individual posts and you do not need to repeat the same information ad nauseam for each reply to a newbie or information seeker.

So the fact that non-physicians contribute mightly to this forum is something we both stipulate is a true condition, and therefore not a valid criticism of an education sub-forum?

If there were highly developed wiki pages that anticipated new-user questions, that would be great. But for the post part, this doesn't exist now. I see/read much more detailed explanations in threads (with questions and confusions cleared up) than in the typical wiki entries.

I think the interactive quality of threads would be a boon. It would encourage those with knowledge that they like to share that it would be contained in an enduring (and easily located) thread, and it would give a space where the confused could elicit clarifications. Lastly, it ought to aid wiki writers/editors by serving as a resource they could draw upon to wrte and expand the wiki entries.

Win, win, win.

Bill

[srlevine1]

So the fact that non-physicians contribute mightly to this forum is something we both stipulate is a true condition, and therefore not a valid criticism of an education sub-forum?

If there were highly developed wiki pages that anticipated new-user questions, that would be great. But for the post part, this doesn't exist now. I see/read much more detailed explanations in threads (with questions and confusions cleared up) than in the typical wiki entries.

I think the interactive quality of threads would be a boon. It would encourage those with knowledge that they like to share that it would be contained in an enduring (and easily located) thread, and it would give a space where the confused could elicit clarifications. Lastly, it ought to aid wiki writers/editors by serving as a resource they could draw upon to wrte and expand the wiki entries.

Win, win, win.

Bill

Are you volunteering to outline the structure of the sub-forums and write the instructions on what belongs in each category? Are you then suggesting a moderator be assigned to each sub-forum to monitor the entries?

[Spy Car]

So the fact that non-physicians contribute mightly to this forum is something we both stipulate is a true condition, and therefore not a valid criticism of an education sub-forum?

If there were highly developed wiki pages that anticipated new-user questions, that would be great. But for the post part, this doesn't exist now. I see/read much more detailed explanations in threads (with questions and confusions cleared up) than in the typical wiki entries.

I think the interactive quality of threads would be a boon. It would encourage those with knowledge that they like to share that it would be contained in an enduring (and easily located) thread, and it would give a space where the confused could elicit clarifications. Lastly, it ought to aid wiki writers/editors by serving as a resource they could draw upon to wrte and expand the wiki entries.

Win, win, win.

Bill

Are you volunteering to outline the structure of the sub-forums and write the instructions on what belongs in each category? Are you then suggesting a moderator be assigned to each sub-forum to monitor the entries?

My suggested outline for organizing the subforum (assuming it works with board software) would be to limit thread starting abilities to Moderators and Advisory Members, but for there also be a sticky thread at the top of the subforum where regular members could suggest topics of interest that ModsAdvisory Members could take up when and if they have the time and inclination to do so.

The demand of "immediacy" should be reduced as the aim of this forum would be to raise community education and not to solve an immediate user problem. 

These Senior Members could also start threads on their own inclination (and perhaps as an extension of a post they made on the main boards) as a way of preserving the work that went into answering a particular person's issue. Some regular members might even suggest posts on the Main Forum are so good that they deserve to serve as the basis for a thread in the Education Sub-Forum

There should be no demand on one person to do it all. And the threads would be something that could build over time.

I'd hope the questions of relative newcomers would make information in the Education threads stronger, as misunderstandings could be overcome, and that more expert posters would feel positive feedback for their work.

Bill