New Study on Americans' Expectations of the Net

radicalsubversiv writes "A new study from the Pew Internet & American Life Project reports on Americans' expectations about finding information on the Internet. The (unsurprising) results reveal that large portions of the public go to the net first for many kinds of information. '16 percent of the nonusers say they would turn to the Internet first the next time they need health care and government information.' AP story summarizing the results; and the actual report in PDF format."

Comments

What's the story?

[anarchima]

I don't really see the importance of this story. This is pretty much a reality in the "new age", but of course it's nice to have a study to back it up. Interesting development to see that non-users are turning to the Internet for help, though. I often find that when students at my school are doing research for a project, essay, etc., teachers tell them to look in books first because they know how difficult it can be to find relevant information. This just shows how important it is to have good, thorough searching tools like Google.

Not mentioned in the article...

[Kierthos]

...while 100% of those Americans asked said they expect to find pr0n on the Internet, even when they're not looking for it.

Kierthos

I use the net for....

[Chicane-UK]

All kinds of stuff that perhaps 4 or 5 years ago, wouldn't have been available :

Phone numbers, cinema listings, used car adverts, buying just about anything you can imagine, weather forecast, reading the daily news (well, its more than daily - most sites are updating all the time), and keeping in regular contact with friends and family.

Yes, there are a lot of bad things about the internet, but there have been so many advances in recent years.. it has most definately become a tool that I could not do without!

Re:I use the net for....

[Chasing Amy]

> Yes, there are a lot of bad things about the internet

The only bad thing I see about the Internet is spam. Aside from that, the rest is stuff we can live with even if we don't all necessarily like it... In fact, every other "bad" thing about the Internet which is usually cited is something that's easily dealt with on the client side through filters, firewalls, etc. Spam and the bandwidth it wastes is the only 100% bad thing I can think of about the net.

This can be good... or not

[The Tyro]

Going to the net for general news and commentary is a great use for the internet... far better than sitting on your couch, stuffing your face, passively taking in what Tom or Peter tells you is news.

On the other hand, I sometimes take care of ppl (I work in the healthcare field) who come to see me "armed" with info off the internet; some of it wildly inaccurate.

The internet can be a good place to look for healthcare info, provided you stick to the major sites. Hitting Joe Schmoe's Geocities page about how all the evil doctors tried to kill him treating his cancer... then he found this miracle herb/crystal treatment... Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!

I hate to be paternalistic and say "trust your doctor," but who else is going to help you sort the wheat from the chaff? For instance, take the PDR. Few physicians I know regularly use it; it's simply a list of drug-company inserts, where they list every possible side effect of every possible medicine. Blah... most people will not have side effects, and if they do, it'll be a common one. I've had people go online and bring in a PDR printout to support their contention that "this new drug is causing all my problems! See? All my symptoms are listed right here! Talk about an uphill battle to keep them on a good medication...

Mixed blessing to be sure, but access to information is important. I'd honestly say, that even in my field, the good of the net outweighs the bad.

Re:This can be good... or not

[WPIDalamar]

I'm sure part of the problem is commercials for prescription drugs! What the hell. I see commercial for some drug (claritan, propecia, whatever) ... go to their website that diagnoses me as having X disorder, and then suggests I go see my doctor to get this medication (because no others work as well).

Usually, even if the doctor disagrees they have no choice but to prescribe since the patient will just change primary care physicians to one who will play ball. It just sucks.

Re:This can be good... or not

[RealBeanDip]

"I hate to be paternalistic and say "trust your doctor," but who else is going to help you sort the wheat from the chaff? For instance, take the PDR. Few physicians I know regularly use it; it's simply a list of drug-company inserts, where they list every possible side effect of every possible medicine. Blah... most people will not have side effects, and if they do, it'll be a common one. I've had people go online and bring in a PDR printout to support their contention that "this new drug is causing all my problems! See? All my symptoms are listed right here! Talk about an uphill battle to keep them on a good medication..."

Yeah, but...

There IS a reason those side-effects are listed. The fact is, these people may in fact be correct!

I think it's encouraging that more people are become better educated about health care and medicine in general. My personal belief is a lot of drugs are over prescribed (antibiotics and ridilin (sp?) in particular). I've come to that conclusion through personal observation and, ta da, research on the internet.

So my response to your statement above is this; Good for them. Stay on your toes, answer the questions with solid facts and you'll have nothing to worry about.

Re:This can be good... or not

[Oculus Habent]

I think in addition to the side effects, perhaps there should be percentages of those affected. This could be a bad thing, but it would also give doctors a tool against patients who say things like "See, it says rare cases of bleeding eye sockets, and after inspecting my eyes for nine hours yesterday, they started bleeding!"

Re:This can be good... or not

[The Tyro]

Boy, do I wish it were that easy. It often doesn't matter how solid my facts are; it's a question of who you believe. If you look at any list of side effects, you'll find many with 2%, 3% incidence. To have 3 or 4 rare side effects at one time, assuming they are unrelated to one another? If you work out the probability, it's pretty low.

I'm not anyone's jailer... I can't force anyone to take anything. I do my best to give accurate information, and try to persuade people to do the right thing for themselves... but the final call is always theirs. In a way that somewhat absolves me of responsibility for the outcome, but it still pains me to see people hurt themselves.

You are correct that some drugs are over-prescribed. Antibiotics are overprescribed, and Ritalin is sometimes as well (though to be fair, if you have real ADHD, it's a wonder drug... the difference is like night and day). The problem comes in the form of doctor shopping. Do you risk your long-time relationship with a patient by outright refusal to try them on a drug? They might go shopping for another doctor who will prescribe it anyway... and then you've lost that incredibly valuable long-term relationship you've built with the patient. So the argument goes: If they are going to get the drug anyway, why don't YOU prescribe it, so you can monitor for complications, and potentially provide better care than a total stranger?

Tough choices... and sometimes driven by direct-to-patient drug company advertising.

Don't even get me started on the advertising issue...

Expectations Real thing

[Kajakske]

In my surrounding, I noticed most people that are not used with using a PC and the interent expect alot from the net, but when they actually use it, they get somewhat demotivated. This biggest problem for non techies is actually finding what you are looking for.

Personally I think this is a matter of habit. if you use alot of searchengines to get to the stuff you want, then you get to know how they work and thus will be able to use them much better.

My mum still doesn't get it.

[caluml]

She has heard of this thing called the internet, but she doesn't appreciate it.

She asked me what I did for work, so I explained. "But you're not making anything, not doing anything", she said.
I'm working with information, I told her.
But that's not real, she said.
If people don't understand the value of information, well. Mind you, if there was a nuclear war, we'd all forget about computers pretty quickly and start trying to grow enough food to survive, find un-contaminated water, and somewhere to stay safe until the nuclear winter was over.

What's my point? I don't know. Maybe I've been insightful. Maybe not. I'll tell my Mum I talked about her on Slashdot though - that'll confuse her... :)

Re:My mum still doesn't get it.

[mikewas]

In case of nuclear war information becomes more important, though the type of information needed changes. How to prevent contamination & decontaminate food, water, air and people. Later you'd neeed to know what plants to grow, when to plant, how to fertalize naturally, hunting & gathering skills, food preservation. Information will become truly invaluable because it'll be the diffference between life & death.

Restoring communications & computer networks would go a long way towards helping the survivors. We'd need to share this information, since it is spread thinly across most of modern society. Envision a slashdot cobbled together from bits & pieces of remaining infrastructure, with folks trading information about tilling the soil, reloading ammo, making black powder, traps & snares, skinning game, tanning hides?

A study released Sunday

[caluml]

A study released Sunday...?

I didn't realise Sunday was being held by study.
(Brits will get it.)

Mod away. There are more important things in life than karma. Hey, that makes a good sig...

Of Course

[Gnaythan1]

The reason I go to a website for news, is because I can not only get the story, but in the comments, I get peoples opinion. Shortly followed by other peoples counter-opinion, better facts, cross-pollination of ideas, and quick debunking feedback on certain types of propoganda.

Of course this requires a little more work on my part, actually picking through information and choosing what is good and what is crap, rather than having it spoon fed.

I actually laugh at what the AP wire and most newspapers call news. I pay little attention unless there is a "comments" link I can sift underneath. I often test a website by checking for and if neccessary posting a contrary comment, just to see if it sticks around. If the comment is harshly negative to the majority of comments already posted, but is not deleted, that website has validity, and I will be more apt to trust it.

Internet Hypochondria

[Boss, Pointy Haired]

You can scare yourself shitless searching for health care information on the Internet. The Onion have run a few stories on this.

Apparently, it's also a pain in the ass for doctors, because patients walk into their surgery having diagnosed themselves on Google and demand a particular treatment.

No need to teach granny to suck eggs, but as someone said above; it's on the Internet - so it has to be true.

Health Care info on the Internet is mostly bad news, because it is almost impossible to distinguish sound peer reviewed medical services from Dr. Nick Riviera's "I'll do any operation $199.99".

If you feel ill or find a lump anywhere, go see a real doctor.

I use library and telephone analogies

[MyNameIsFred]

I had the same problem with my in-laws. At first they didn't understand the internet and were leary. I used a couple of analogies... URLs are just phone numbers, except easier to remember. They could understand this. They're old enough to remember when telephone numbers were "Klondike 567." Then I showed them how it was just like a library in your home. It was tax time, and my father-in-law needed a tax form. A few clicks and ta-da. I even located an out of print book my mother-in-law wanted.

Although as someone who pushes paper all day, I have to agree with your Mum. Sometimes I wish I drove a bulldozer. At least at the end of the day I could point to something I had accomplished.

OTOH, you could ask your Mum if a being a lawyer is a real job, all they do is push information. Or how about an accountant...

Where are the alternatives?

[psplay]

CNN? USA Today? the LA Times?

I must admit after spending 18 months in LA. I HAD to use news.bbc.co.uk for news, and cnet.com and epinions.com for reviews of products/prices.

The alternatives were horrendous, CNN was just so sensationalist that it made ITN look serious. Ditto the majority of news services. Anyway for sheer convenience and control of what I am reading, the Internet has an easy win.

As for shopping,shop staff were generally useless (except at Fry's, bless 'em), newspaper advertising never gave enough details. Magazines only reviewed new products, not the end of line stock that is so attractively priced in the stores.

Finally, erm, having no friends over there didn't help either.

The other 84 percent??

[DamienMcKenna]

"16 percent of the nonusers say they would turn to the Internet first the next time..".

So 16% would use the net for healthcare and government information. That still means 84% would NOT. So why is this being promoted as a victory for the Internet over alternative communications methods?

I read this in the news recently

[tenjah]

This is a very funny piece of investigative journalism people.
Americans annoyed by "all this international shit" on the internet
This is the article that I thing the original poster meant to link to.

It can be helpful though....

[Lokatana]

I had an issue with my daughter when she was 3 months old, and as part of the doctor's investigation, they found she had an inverted chromosome which ended up having nothing to do with her problem.

The amazing thing is, the geneticist couldn't tell me anything about this particular inversion, as neither she or any of her colleagues had ever seen it before.

I used the internet to search various databases and papers, and came up with a single paper that had been written in Europe a few years back that studied a family that had the very same inversion. I was the one who brought this paper to the geneticist's attention (rather than the other way around), after which we were able to confidently set aside the genetic findings as a red herring. This was a case of the patient knowing more than the doctor!!!

While I agree with the spirit of this posting, I believe my story shows that there are no absolutes here. When used intellectually, given the right inputs, it is a very valuable tool!

-Lokatana

Information can build fortunes

[mangu]

About 200 years ago, the Rotschild family built its fortune in Europe based on exclusive access to information. The five brothers each had a bank in a major capital and they used pigeons to exchange information among themselves. There is worth, not only in information alone, but also on how quick one can get that information.

Internet dying

[RalphSlate]

I have no precise facts to back this up, but I believe that the internet is slowly contracting -- dying -- because the amount of available information is shrinking. I don't think this is a case of me having the "when I was young, the snow was up to my waist" syndrome either.

I find that when I search for information on topics, I get mostly links to sites to buy products. Or links to sites that don't work anymore. I might get one or two good links, but not often.

For example, I wanted information on police scanners last week. That sounds like a common topic for people to publish information on the internet, right?

A google search brought me, in the top 10 results:

• 2 links to APBNews.com, a site which has been defunct for a while (I think since 2001). Those were the top 2 "relevant" links.
• A couple of local newspaper sites that link to their area police broadcasts.
• A couple of places where I could buy scanners. Note, most of these places were selling for full MSRP, so even the merchant links don't really help, since if I buy from them I'll pay more than a store.
• One or two amateurish sites devoted to scanning, but with stale information. Some of hese sites offered information if you purchased it from them for $10-20. I'd be better off buying a book.

Now from some of these sites, I was able to piece together some information on the topic, mostly by uusing some information from the merchant sites, and some from the amateur sites, but I was expecting to find a couple of "semi-pro" resources devoted to the topic, a place where I could have most of my questions answered.

This isn't the first time I've experienced this. I search for information on how to remodel my house, but I find that there really is little out there anymore -- just a bunch of small merchant sites, often spammed so that the top 10 search results all redirect to the same merchant.

I believe this is happening because there is little incentive to create fresh, updated content on the internet anymore. Sure, you'll get people creating a website and maybe spending a weekend updating it, but it's really not like the old days, when you could get information on any subject, no matter how obscure, updated daily or even weekly.

I have a feeling that the internet's days as a font of information may be running out, because there is no way to run a quality, high-traffic website for free forever. It may be better than any other source of information, but I believe that soon, people will be heading back to libraries and bookstores for their information, because it just won't be there on the internet. What a shame!

Too much reliance

[rbolkey]

About three years ago I was stranded in an airport. I knew some people in the area that could've helped me out, but I couldn't recall their phone number.

So, I then went to the information desk in search of an internet connection I could use to find their phone number. The desk didn't have access available.

A few moments of silence passed, and the lady asked me if a phone book would do.

(Kicker to the story, my friends number was busy because they were using the phone line for AOL).