The user can vote for the story or comment on it. These features, now so very common, no longer seem as appealing as they once did.
While I haven’t been shy about criticizing what I see as problems with BioWizard, I think its model will prove the most popular and lasting of these sites for two reasons:
- BioWizard does more than the others because of its integration with PubMed, and this encourages a professional user base. Anyone, after all, can build a Pligg-based site clone that is essentially Digg for a particular subject focus. The folks behind BioWizard were smart to utilize the power of PubMed to build something a good bit more powerful.
- BioWizard got to market first and appears to have a larger (or perhaps just much more active) user base. It’s not impossible for the others to catch up, but a casual comparison of BioWizard with any of the others reveals pretty quickly BioWizard’s unique features.
The only way BioWizard can fail, I think, is if it doesn’t promote itself effectively. The only way sites like MediNews and Onexamination.com can succeed is to differentiate themselves and offer something their competitors do not.
The feature I want:
The feature that none of these sites yet has (that I want to see) is the ability of groups of users to rank articles by votes from only members of their own group. This might be a professional association based on a medical specialty or geographic location, or a large medical practice which wants a more narrow set of co-evaluators.