@kevin - That is part of what we are supposed to do during the proposal/commitment/private beta phase. Rather than trusting public beta to "bring in the pro's", we need to be reaching out to medical professionals that we know might be interested.
If you are starting a business, you don't wait for the doors to open for the people to flood in, even while you are building the location out, you are out there promoting, advertising, beating the street to raise awareness.
I'm wondering... the site is in private beta for 17 days now. What triggers the switch to the public beta? The only thing I found on Meta is that the private beta lasts about a week (meta.stackexchange.com/a/164192/168229) - Any idea?
@Shlublu All I know is that the SE team determines when a site get's out of private beta. I'm not 100% sure about the criteria they use, but I think that they probably see how well the community is moderating itself.
I'm not worried though, Lifehacks was in private beta for about this long.
@michaelpri That would make sense. I am not so much worried. I just think it would create some dynamics. Not in contradiction but in addition of what John says just above.
@Susan - I can see your point re: blood donations, but each of those could easily be a stand alone question.
Particularly this: Will it have a negative impact on the immunity of the donor?
I can see that as a stand alone question very easily, "If I donate blood before the recommended waiting period, what are the implications on my immune system?"
I can see it as an extension of "What is the recommended wait time", but it can be a great stand alone question as well. The recommended wait time question is very broad, as you have to take into account possible health complications/issues, since it doesn't narrow it itself.
Well, this site's off to a roaring start!
Kudos to everyone who has participated thus far; lotta great information here, and some promising signs of life from folks who are interested in helping each other learn more about human health.
But, there are some rough areas...
Answers that don't h...
My question was spurred by the following t1dm? For the average person, this tag will probably be useless.
Should the name of the tag be more descriptive? If not, there are many medical terms that have obscure acronyms which wouldn't benefit many people and could lead to confusion, improper use ...
As tim says, it's a short answer with links. As shog said on my question on meta, it's better to reproduce the information or even better, work the links into the answer. That prevents link decay from ruining the answer.
My question was spurred by the following t1dm? For the average person, this tag will probably be useless.
Should the name of the tag be more descriptive? If not, there are many medical terms that have obscure acronyms which wouldn't benefit many people and could lead to confusion, improper use ...
Grand Rounds
Grand Rounds