Great article: Who is a "Qualified Expert"?

[hitchinmygetalong]

This article (http://www.kentuckyhorse.org/en/art/287/) is on the Kentucky Horse Council website.

I thought it was particularly timely given some of the contention on this board about who exactly might be qualified to give out advice, be it veterinary, medical, training, nutrition, shoeing etc.

Feedback is invited. Perhaps we can have a nice discussion on this?

A couple of quotes:

There are several professional websites that feature articles written by veterinarians, certified hoof care professionals, etc. which can be trusted to provide accurate information. On the other hand there are many websites that retell personal experiences intermingled with facts and can often appear legitimate but may not have all the information correct. It’s always important to identify the source of online information and determine the mission or goal of the individual/organization producing the article.As with all things, it can be DANGEROUS to blindly assume that all information on the Internet is accurate. Finally it is important to remember that just because it worked for someone else doesn’t mean it will work for your horse or situation. Each horse is an individual and should be treated as such with varying metabolism, conformation, personality, behavior traits, history, and exposures. Qualified professionals have training, experience, and access to the most current information to best address the needs of your horse.

[Thomas_1]

Seems sensible to remember that "advice" is too often only opinion of an anonymous poster and must be critically questioned particularly if it's given with no real experience and no sound basis such as Professional competence, accredited training or qualification.

[hitchinmygetalong]

So how is a reader supposed to know who is the "real deal" and who is not - that I think is a good question. I know there are some posters here for whom I can verify credentials and experience, but what about others who (ha ha like me) post anonymously and there is no way to verify anything? They seem to be saying "all the right things" - do we discount them entirely simply because they are anonymous?

[Foxtrot's]

There is a lot of good advice (and not so good) on these forums. It is the responsibility of an original poster to read the answers and see if any pertain to their problem. Lots of info would be harmless and any other can be run by a vet. Not rocket science.

[Guilherme]

So how is a reader supposed to know who is the "real deal" and who is not - that I think is a good question. I know there are some posters here for whom I can verify credentials and experience, but what about others who (ha ha like me) post anonymously and there is no way to verify anything? They seem to be saying "all the right things" - do we discount them entirely simply because they are anonymous?

Well, you can apply the "duck" test: if it waddles, quacks, has an orange bill, webbed feed, poops through feathers, and likes water then it's probably a duck.

Or you can try the Rule of Hippie Common Sense: If it feels good, do it; if it doesn't feel good, don't do it.

And last, but far from least, is the Smell Test: If it smells OK, it probably is OK; if it smells bad, it probably is bad.

Each of these "rules of thumb" have their own problems, but each also has a certain level of utility.

At the end of the day it's the quality of the advice, not the identity of the advice giver, that counts. If a person lacks the ability to evaluate 'Net based advice then they should seriously consider finding a local "mentor" to teach them what they don't know.

G.

[Nojacketrequired]

There is a lot of good advice (and not so good) on these forums. It is the responsibility of an original poster to read the answers and see if any pertain to their problem. Lots of info would be harmless and any other can be run by a vet. Not rocket science.

It's also, IMO, important for other posters to call out anyone who gives bad advice that is leaning towards dangerous. Unless it is pointed out that this may be bad advice, a newbie might actually believe what is being written if the person sounds authoritative enough.


NJR

[Thomas_1]

So how is a reader supposed to know who is the "real deal" and who is not - that I think is a good question. I know there are some posters here for whom I can verify credentials and experience, but what about others who (ha ha like me) post anonymously and there is no way to verify anything? They seem to be saying "all the right things" - do we discount them entirely simply because they are anonymous?
Well I've got a pretty good bovine excrement detector. I can smell it from miles away. Also helps that my wife happens to specialise in internet crime and as a side line she lectures in the psychology of lies and deception in the written word. So I smell the bull sh** and she confirms it and explains why.

Also over time and with a wide variety of topics, you can build a pretty good impression of who talks sense and who talks out of their backside. If you watch out for who groups together in total accord it also helps to form a view too.

Then if you're not sure if what you're told sounds right or not, just don't rely on a single source of information. Cross reference advice with more traditional sources: e.g. an actual real live trainer/farrier/vet or books or research articles.

If you're a real novice and don't have a clue how to distinguish good from bad, then away to a real professionally competent person who you can look in the eye and who can guide you through.

[Bogie]

I saw a quote recently that struck home. Of course right now I can't remember the exact wording but the gist of it was, "Many anecdotes do not equal data." So true.

And of course, there's the old New Yorker Cartoon where a dog says to a cat, "on the Internet, no one knows you're a dog!"

[Thomas_1]

^

Bogie,

It's "The plural of anecdote is not data"

Did you know I'm a chippendale dancer and look just like a very young Paul Newman?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/flodden_edge/internet.jpg

[grayarabpony]

And then there's RiverBendPol, who by coming on here realized that her horse had EPSM... you can't always depend on local professionals. Now there may have certainly been a vet who could have diagnosed her horse, but who knows how many vets she may have had to go through first.

[Penthilisea]

Ah but therein lies the beauty of the expert community theory. Where as each of us individually may be uneducated slobs with skinny lame wormy horses, all together we will self select the most "right" commentators in any given situation based on long term relationship development and subtextual assumptions about others on the board (as a reflection of how we wish to be seen.)

[grayarabpony]

Wait a minute, I thought none of us were as dumb as all of us.

[Vitriolic]

Well I've got a pretty good bovine excrement detector.

I have noticed this about you, so I check your take on certain topics. :)

Also over time and with a wide variety of topics, you can build a pretty good impression of who talks sense and who talks out of their backside. If you watch out for who groups together in total accord it also helps to form a view too.
.

ditto. Before I ever deal with anyone on a board who advises something adamantly, is buying or selling, or looking for work, I read all or at least many of their posts. On another board, I once read someone's blog and :eek: I ran in the other direction. What a nut. Her posts weren't all that crazy; she saved what she really thought for the blog. :D

[Laurierace]

Sarah Stetner for president!!!

[Sithly]

Sarah Stetner for president!!!

She's got my vote! Anyone who can get 15.2 out of 12 is sure to solve the budget crisis.

:lol:

[Bluey]

Then, there are those posters that keep dropping that they are xyz and sound so proud of it, but when you keep reading their posts, you go :eek:.
It does make you wonder who is really who.:yes:

I think that, just like with horse sales "buyer beware", the internet is "reader beware".
You can find much information, but you need to double and triple check it.