- Participants skipped drug company sites because they didn't trust them
- Participants skipped National Health Service (sort of like NIH) b'cuz on the "first page participants were directed to was a portal or they had too much background or generic content."
- And "even if a site made a favourable first impression, it was unlikely to keep the attention if it did not include personal stories to which the reader could relate."
- easy to find and,
- by their standards, trustworthy
Maybe yes, maybe no.
For the most part I think our patrons see our resources as trustworthy but just a pain in the ass to use. But I doubt we can ever make it as easy to use as Google. We just don't have the $ to catch up. So what about getting testimonials? Not a scholar saying how great ABI inform is but how about working with a faculty member, graduate student or the dept as a whole to brand the site--'Here's what the anthro dept uses'? Leverage the liaison program?
Another random thought--
Are libraries are like health info sites -- my take is yes but...
- On library sites people are looking for citations or other specific pieces of info that they will know (more or less) what to do with
- On health info sites people are looking for trusted advice about what to do