- Ask questions;
- Answer them; and
- Discover and browse through all of the answered questions that others have posed.
And that's not all! The service is free, questions are grouped into categories, and there’s a search function.
But wait, there's more...the 'service' has a rating system built in....and how does that work? Well the person who asks the question rates the answers! Experts evaluating experts of course...why would you think any differently?
Does this sound like an internet version of over-the fence gossip?
Are there questions that are beginning to nag at you? Like what constraints (such as no medical or legal advice) apply? A quick (and truly random) search of the website revealed the following question:
"Is it safe to give a young child an immunization when they're already sick?".
The 'Asker' had a serious medical ethics and practice question.
Two answers (at the time of writing) - neither from a registered medical practitioner, but one respondent claims to be a nurse with twenty years experience.
And the rating system? Well the 'Asker' rates the non-nurse as 5-star...the nurse did not even get measured!
Confidence building?
Competitor Google has its 'Answers' which uses "More than 500 carefully screened Researchers" to reply to questions. Their second difference is that the 'Asker' pays a fee for the inquiry.
Specialty sites are also available. But they avoid the problem areas. Guru, for instance, sticks to business and public sector advice.
Storm-in-a-Browser?
It might appear on the surface that this is no different to old-wives-tales vs visiting the doctor? Not so!
Performance-Eye's attention was drawn to this situation by Charlene Li, a principal analyst on the Devices, Media, & Marketing team of Forrester Research, a (Nasdaq: FORR) listed independent technology and market research company. Charlene is a former strategy consultant for Monitor Company, a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard University, and holds an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School. She is a leading blogger in the IT sector.
And this is the scarey bit!
She has concerns about the Google researcher approach because "...it is a lot more cumbersome to use and also raises the stakes for both the asker and the answerer".
And she clearly favours Yahoo..."By keeping it free, Yahoo! keeps it light but also pretty darn useful. Also, the universe expands tremendously with Yahoo’s service. Two other ways Yahoo! benefits: 1) It encourages users to become active, participating Yahoo! community members; and 2) it creates new content that can be indexed and searched by Yahoo! (as well as other search engines)."
So it all boils down to the almighty dollar...!
"How will Yahoo! benefit?" Charlene asks..."Well, I don’t think they were leaving much money on the table by foregoing the ability to charge. In fact, there’s probably quite a bit more opportunity in the form of advertising, especially since advertisers could potentially buy ad inventory in specific categories or target ads by specific keywords".
Cashing in on crisis?
And the stinger is in the tail!
"One key area to watch: local advice. This has the potential of causing a huge dent in start-ups like Insider’s Guide or Judy’s Book, primarily because it’s so easy to use and doesn’t require forming a formal social network.
So financial leverage from the internet appears to be the primary purpose, and legal and social accountability are key elements to be avoided?
I wonder who cares about the life of the two-year old child in the serious 'immunization' question?
