Can user generated content be trusted? The answer to this is perhaps less important if you’re viewing videos on YouTube, photos on Flikr, or sharing updates with friends on Facebook. However, when it comes to medical or legal matters, the question takes on a different level of importance.

The Economist recently published an interesting article entitled Health 2.0 (subscription may be required). In it, they cite a Jupiter study that more than 20% of American internet users have created some soft of health-related content. More significantly, in my opinion, they point to research by the Pew Internet & American Life Project that the upside of health-related UGC outweighs the risks, stating that 1/3 of the people who have looked for health information online say they or people they know have been significantly helped by what they found, while only three percent reported that online advice had caused serious harm. Perhaps more telling, only six percent of the content in the epilepsy-support group on the website Braintalk was factually wrong, according to a study published in the British Medical Journal.

We at Avvo believe that user generated content, such as client ratings and peer endorsements, are valuable to help consumers make an informed decision when choosing a lawyer. And while reviewing user generated content is only one of several steps consumers should take when selecting a lawyer, it’s encouraging to see that research is validating the overall quality of user generated content being published on the web.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 3rd, 2007 at 8:33 am by Paul Bloom and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.