(Not So Great) Grand Rounds

Hosting blog-carnivals is no easy task. And when the submissions get up into the 30’s and 40’s, it can be quite daunting. Yet it’s not impossible, as we saw with this week’s financial carnivals.

So I am disappointed that KidneyNotes, the host of this week’s Grand Rounds, did such a lackluster job. Yes, it’s very clever that he (she?) used the “delicious” (or whatever) program to tag the links. But GR is not about how clever one can be in manipulating the technology: it’s about presenting posts in an interesting way. IMO, the host’s job is to review and summarize the submissions, perhaps sorting them into categories (although this last is by no means critical).

In scrolling down the list (in alphabetical order? By order of submission? By zodiac sign? It’s never stated), there’s no way to know what the subject or purpose of any particular post is. Yes, they’re “categorized,” but so what? The categories have no reference.

For example: would you know that this entry was written by a certified office manager (to my knowledge, the first such submission ever to GR):

Ms. Kiehl states that “(i)f you walk into a (doctor’s office) and ask, ‘What does it cost?’ they can’t tell you. (The medical industry)…is trying to keep this information a secret.”

Of course not. And all of the entries are presented this way. All this shows is that the host can click on a link, and do simple cut-and-paste. It doesn’t show that he’s actually read the post (or even the summary that accompanied the submission).

I certainly have higher aspirations for the Cavalcade of Risk.