So I'm visiting here from Crowdholding and finished playing around with your Beta platform.
I am a complete noob to the medical field but managed to learn some interesting things!
For example, I learned what the Aortic Arch is. This was made possible by easy links to wikipedia:
http://
Your platform was easy enough for someone like me to use and benefit from.
So that tells me:
- It is intuitive, simple, and very easy to use
- Has a vast amount of information that is easily accessible.
- Has an interactive element to it that can facilitate learning.
Some things that stood out that could be improved:
- I wonder how useful it would be to just have students follow links to Wikipedia? Wouldn't it be better to have more academic links? I suppose the student can find academic references through the wikipedia pages but direct links to scholarly works seems appropriate.
- I'm not sure about the technical side of things, but the platform did seem to take a long time to load between categories. I assume it is because of the large files that you can interact with. If so, and nothing can be done, that is acceptable. However, I imagine a medical student having to cover vast amounts of information at a time. With each page taking 30 sec to a minute to load, that is a lot of wasted time for the student.
Overall, I would say it is a terrific platform, especially when you consider that it is in Beta. You can use this open testing of the platform to attract more investors. It has certainly changed my mind about whether I should consider investing your company.
Thanks for the reviewI am a complete noob to the medical field but managed to learn some interesting things!
For example, I learned what the Aortic Arch is. This was made possible by easy links to wikipedia:
http://
Your platform was easy enough for someone like me to use and benefit from.
So that tells me:
- It is intuitive, simple, and very easy to use
- Has a vast amount of information that is easily accessible.
- Has an interactive element to it that can facilitate learning.
Some things that stood out that could be improved:
- I wonder how useful it would be to just have students follow links to Wikipedia? Wouldn't it be better to have more academic links? I suppose the student can find academic references through the wikipedia pages but direct links to scholarly works seems appropriate.
- I'm not sure about the technical side of things, but the platform did seem to take a long time to load between categories. I assume it is because of the large files that you can interact with. If so, and nothing can be done, that is acceptable. However, I imagine a medical student having to cover vast amounts of information at a time. With each page taking 30 sec to a minute to load, that is a lot of wasted time for the student.
Overall, I would say it is a terrific platform, especially when you consider that it is in Beta. You can use this open testing of the platform to attract more investors. It has certainly changed my mind about whether I should consider investing your company.
Regarding the possible improvements you mentioned in the review:
- Wikipedia is not only the resource to link with but rather there is many other academic resources but unfortunately you don't have the editing permission to see these tools
- There many causes for long time loading - first is because the large files we are dealing with - second because we are in beta and there is a lot of code that need to be rewritten to improve the speed of the software
But I am thankful for this review and you've got our vote and an extra reward for this
other academic resources like Pubmed are already integrated in the platform
It's good to know you already have integrated some verified resources but probably also have long-term plans of integrating more.
It is likely that the goal is to link the platform with as many credible sources as possible to make the data as accurate as possible
how you can say who is credible sources? is there be some test or similar?
I guess that today every branch in science has its own credible sources and each source is based on the rules of a particular profession
