undefined | Better HN

0 pointsanmaslak8y ago0 comments

We've gone back and for the with the idea of showing the probabilities across the matches.

Ultimately, to your point, we learned that at times it can scare users more than it can help them (e.g., if a condition goes from 0.5% to 1%)... not to say that we can't do that above a certain threshold.

We'll keep testing this. Is there a certain minimum probability you'd want to see before seeing a condition (e.g., if something is 1% matching vs 10% vs 70%)?

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

Retric8y ago· 1 in thread

It's a question of risk vs downside. Pulmonary embolism for example is deadly and can look like a lot of more common things. Which is why it kills a lot of people every year.

Yertis8y ago

This is a great point -- weighing false positives against false negatives/true positives/false positives is something we think about a lot. It's really important to get this right.

This is why, at this stage, we have a strong bias towards guiding people towards the right care provider rather than trying to replace them; it's more of an aid rather than substitute. One example of this is how some of our users have used the symptom tool with joint pain, and its helped them figure out that they should see a rheumatologist, who was then able to guide them towards the right care to treat their particular version of arthritis.

It's smart care providers like that that can really deal with the nuanced cases and make sure people minimize the risk that they miss things like a pulmonary embolism.

jshevek8y ago· 1 in thread

That's wonderful that you are open to feedback from geeks with fringe interests.

If I were in charge of this project, I would strive for simplicity and for appeal to the widest audience, and not indulge the geeks, students, professionals, and hypochondriacs who might want this feature.

The casual user should get fuzzy names for probability values, as you already do. I wouldn't even let them see the numeric values - that seems like bad psychology and an invitation to ascribe the wrong meaning.

Maybe there is a way to make everyone happy though? Is there already a "debug mode" for developers? Making it possible (not easy, but possible) for users to activate debug mode might be a way to expose functionality which would provide the kind of information.

> Is there a certain minimum probability you'd want to see before seeing a condition (e.g., if something is 1% matching vs 10% vs 70%)?

For people like me, I'd like to be able to dynamically set the value myself.

For the general public - the way you do it now seems good.

Yertis8y ago

Thank you!

As a geek with a few of my own "fringe interests" ;), I love this idea of making it so hacker types can see the adjusting rankings behind the hood.

Sometimes websites do this unintentionally by the things they leave in the html and what not, but would be fun to think of the easter eggs we could leave behind!

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

Retric8y ago· 1 in thread

It's a question of risk vs downside. Pulmonary embolism for example is deadly and can look like a lot of more common things. Which is why it kills a lot of people every year.

Yertis8y ago

This is a great point -- weighing false positives against false negatives/true positives/false positives is something we think about a lot. It's really important to get this right.

It's smart care providers like that that can really deal with the nuanced cases and make sure people minimize the risk that they miss things like a pulmonary embolism.

jshevek8y ago· 1 in thread

That's wonderful that you are open to feedback from geeks with fringe interests.

> Is there a certain minimum probability you'd want to see before seeing a condition (e.g., if something is 1% matching vs 10% vs 70%)?

For people like me, I'd like to be able to dynamically set the value myself.

For the general public - the way you do it now seems good.

Yertis8y ago

Thank you!

As a geek with a few of my own "fringe interests" ;), I love this idea of making it so hacker types can see the adjusting rankings behind the hood.

Sometimes websites do this unintentionally by the things they leave in the html and what not, but would be fun to think of the easter eggs we could leave behind!

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse