text:
Tuesday, 21 March 2017

How Tiffany Case got her name

Nowadays when there is a new James Bond film out all characters needs to be invented with very Bondish names. Something that Mike Myers has played with wonderfully in the Austin Powers series.
But the early films all had names from the James Bond books written by Ian Fleming.

Tiffany Case was the name for the girl in the 1956 novel Diamonds Are Forever.

And it is revealed in the last third of the book, when Bond asks her why she was given such a special name.
And the reason I got called Tiffany is because when I was born, dear father Case was so sore I wasn’t a boy he gave my mother a thousand bucks and a powder case from Tiffany’s and walked out. Joined the Marines. In the end he got killed at Iwo Jima. So my mother just called me Tiffany Case and set about earning a living for us both. Started with a string of call-girls and then got more ambitious. Maybe that doesn’t sound so good to you?’ She looked at him half defensively and half pleadingly.
In the world as of today parents seem to give their children all types of names. Especially names from Film and TV. But back in the 50's and 60's Ian Fleming must have been in a league of his own coming up with all these fantastic names within the literally James Bond.

Below is the cover drawing for the Scandinavian James Bond comic that was distributed between 1965 and 1995 by Semic Press. Many of them with fantastic scenes from the James Bond books. The below one is of course from Diamonds Are Forever that was titled Death Plays False in Sweden and Death and Diamonds in Denmark. Cover scan is borrowed from Bond O Rama.

If you wish to read Diamonds are Forever you can buy it at Amazon US here and Amazon UK here.

No comments:

Post a comment

From the archives:

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Identified-Payload-Type: text/html

WARC-Type: response

text:
Bow Headband

Bow Headband

Item 100020841 100020841

Standard Price $16.00 Sale Price $4.99 4.99

Add to cart options

Product Actions

Out of Stock

Additional Information

  • Polyester Grosgrain Ribbon; Plastic Band
  • Spot Clean; Imported
  • Spring Splendor

A Forever Kind of Love

We make clothes that last. Keepsakes that can stay with your family, be handed down to your friends or donated for someone else to love.

Complete the Look

warcinfo:
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-45
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for October 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-127.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.17 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/


text:
Have a Question or Want a Free Market Report?

Contact Us
Questions? We're Here to Help
Search Listings

Grandevine Condos For Sale

View today's hottest Grandevine condos for sale & Columbia real estate below! To request up-to-date information about Grandevine condos for sale or to arrange a private showing, contact your Columbia condominium professionals today.

Condos For Sale in Grandevine Columbia

Grandevine Condominium Statistics October 29, 2020
Avg. DOM
Avg. $ / Sq.Ft.
Med. List Price
3 Properties

See All Real Estate For Sale in Columbia
Search TODAY's New Listings by beds/baths, property size, listing status, days on market & more!
See All Columbia Communities

Grandevine Condominium Agents

Planning to buy a condo in Grandevine? Let our Columbia condominium experts guide you through the sale of your current residence or the purchase of your next Grandevine condo. As local real estate agents, we have up-to-date information on the unique dynamics of the Grandevine condo market.

Contact Jeff Cook Real Estate to learn more about representation for buyers and sellers. Preparing to sell your Grandevine condo unit? View our market analysis page to receive a free Grandevine condo evaluation within moments.

Search Condos For Sale in Grandevine Columbia

Back to Columbia Real Estate


text:
Oct 22, 2014

My Cookbook is Free for Everyone

Cookbook_5306Thanks to my publisher, anyone can now download my cookbook for free. It was published in 2006 but since then I have evolved as a cook and have simplified and improved the way I cook. Most of the recipes from the book are posted here on this website, the way I make them today, so there is no need to purchase the book. To download a free copy of this book click here.

(*The download works best on a desktop computer. You can not download this book to a tablet but you should be able to view it there.)

Filed Under: General

58 Comments on "My Cookbook is Free for Everyone"

  1. MaryAnn Main

    I was looking for easy recipes to make with the pantry items I had on hand during the pandemic of 2020 and came upon your YouTube channel. You make cooking fun! Your camera presence was so great I thought “who is this woman” I’m sorry to say it took several links and web searches before I realized I Know Her!
    Thank you for all you have done and continue to do. Thank you especially for being so generous with your time, talent and treasure. God Bless.

  2. Kathy

    Hi Jenny: I just found you on Utube and thank you for such good, easy to follow explanations with a-bit of humor and allowing us the recipes. I just made
    Cinnamon Rolls and Chicken Pot Pie. I was ready to find and pay for your book and here it is. I used to watch your show when I was home having babies. Thank you for all the entertainment. Love your kitchen too. My cooking was a hit!

  3. Mary

    Jenny, thanks for taking the time to share your recipes that even I can successfully make! Your kindness was always apparent on your show, which I loved. Your kindness continues to be apparent as your fans get to know you from your videos! Thanks for being you, Jenny.

  4. Esther Axenty

    I have not read your book still need to download.. I still appreciate having some recipes that are nutritious and new to try..I’ll let you know after I’ve tried some and test it on my Son who’s decided long ago to eat as healthy as he can..

  5. Bonnie

    Jenny (Janina) I have been following since I was a teenager, and now I’m almost 52. I pray you are content in life and doing well. Would love to hear from you and to know you’re doing okay. I certainly miss seeing your face, but I can understand why you want to remain out of the spot light. I miss your funny cooking videos. Your down home realness. I just watched a video on baking bread ,and it made me miss you. We need people like you in the world. Much love from Versailles, Kentucky.

    • Jenny Can Cook

      Thank you for the kind words. I am fine, just busy with life.

  6. Melba

    Hi! Jenny, I’m so happy to have found your site!! I loved watching your TV show and now equally blessed to have your recipes. You make me feel like I can cook and bake anything. Your recipes are easy, healthy, and fun to make. Thank you for your wit, passion, and sense of humor. I tried to download your book but it doesn’t go past the first page. Yes, I’m on a desktop. I also read your FAQ but, no mention if your bread recipes are adaptable to a bread machine? I’m more interested in your book; the bread machine, I’ll experiment. : ) I just love watching your videos. They bring a smile to my face and joy to my heart when I can recreate one of your dishes. I go to your site pretty much every day. You’re inspirational!!! Wishing you happiness, Melba

    • Jenny Can Cook

      We tested the cookbook download and it appears to be working, but honestly I don’t advise using the book because I am a different cook today and my cooking is simpler and more streamlined. Plus, most of the recipes in the book are already here on this site, improved and simplified, more in line with how I cook today. As for bread machines, I’m sorry I have no experience with them.

      • Melba

        Thank you for your advice. I realized that the reward is in the actual kneading and baking. Though I have some physical difficulties, I love your wonderful recipes and the joy you give.Thanks for I just made your peanut butter cookies and they’re great!

      • EmUrFa

        Hi, Jenny !
        I just wanted to say thank you for sharing your recipes.
        You are the best cook ever, what i love about your recipes it is that they are very easy to make and and exquisite.
        I’ve had never bake bread before but when i watched your videos and you made look so easy i was willing to give it a try and actually it came out pretty good, my children are so happy that i finally know how to bake yeeeyyy.
        I can’t thank enough, i hope you read this comment.

        • Jenny Can Cook

          I do look at comments and I appreciate your kind note.

    • Sheila Bottos

      Jenny, you are amazing, I made your ribs over the weekend and they were the best I have ever had!!! Please tell me how to cook everything!!! You are wonderful!!!

  7. Domino

    I love your recipes, and would love to get your cookbook, but can’t seem to download it? Is the link working?

    • Jenny Can Cook

      We tested the link and it is working but make sure you are using a desktop computer. Keep in mind that most of the recipes from the book are already here on this website and have been improved and simplified.

    • John

      I downloaded with old window internet explore 11 while Google chrome and Opera failed.

    • Domino

      Yep! Chrome and Firefox were a fail, but internet explorer worked. Thanks. Got it.

  8. Olga

    I love to watch you cook as you are so pleasant and make it so easy that I want to try all the recipes. I am going to try your apple pie as it sounds so easy and delicious.
    I make hard boiled eggs and when you take them off the stove, run them under the cold water tap, drain, and put the cover on your pot and give it a couple of good shakes, and the shell just slides off if you squeeze it. Magic!
    No tiny bits of shell to contend with.
    Gook luck in trying!
    Thanks for being such a wonderful help with all your recipes.

  9. JudyLynne

    Jenny I “tripped” into your cooking video one day and was hooked. When my dad was alive he made the best meatloaf, and mine was awful every time. I tried yours and love it! I double the recipe and share or freeze the other. It really is the best! Thank you so very much for your free cookbook. You are such a blessing!!

  10. Teresa

    Thank you so much for sharing your cook book. As a person completely new to cooking and baking.. I love your recipes so much; very easy and delicious!

  11. Nancy Benigni

    Jenny I was looking up some recipes on buttermilk biscuits when I saw your video on it. I remember you from TV you had a talk show. It was so nice to see you and I love your recipes. you make it so easy. I would love to get your book. How can I get it. Thanks, Nancy

  12. Saffy

    Hi Jenny

    I made the Nachos recipe. It turned out delicious. .Thank you. We had to take a picture. Love your video and Recipes.Oh. I almost forgot. Also, I made the Brownies
    using World Market Chocolate bar and the same Cocoa as you used on video. They are unbelievable delicious. ..

  13. Norm

    can u send me cookbook ,don’t have computer. I have always loved it show,glad u r doing well

    • Jenny

      I am not able to send a book. It’s only free on my website.

      • Jean Siegrist

        Jenny, I love all of your recipes, especially your Best Ever Meatloaf. I am 76 years old and really enjoy how easy it is to make your recipes. Of course, I also love being able to watch your videos on the Internet. Meanwhile, how can I find your cookbook on the Internet or in what local stores is your book available?

        • Jenny Can Cook

          My cookbook is out of print but you don’t need it because all the best recipes from the book are already here on this site.

    • Vanitha Rigatos

      Thank you for your time! You are awesome! Please let me know if you have a cookbook out to purchase. I watch your utube videos but would like to have your book!!Thank you,

  14. Chin-Chin

    Thank you, Ms. Jenny for a free cookbook. You are awesome!

  15. Tom

    First off let me say thank you for all your help that made me want to cook
    you are wonderful…thank you !!!
    I can’t download your free cook book ??
    I’ve tried 2 times to down load to my main computer !1
    am I to late for that offer ?
    I just found it on your site

    • Aroha

      Me either, hopefully we get a response on how to fix it!

      • Jenny

        I’m sorry but we are unable to figure out why most people have no problem downloading the free cookbook while some are unable. All we can think of is that it should be done on a desktop computer and not a mobile device or tablet. It may help to know that a lot of the recipes from the book are already on this site and I will continue to add more recipes from the book with new photos and usually improvements to the recipes as well.

        • Danguole

          Jenny, I love your book and have given hard copies to my cookbook-loving friends. Your photography is beautiful! ❤

          Might have a helpful tip. Couldn’t download your book onto my computer when it first was available but have since purchased an upgraded Adobe Acrobat program. My computer and Android phone are linked, and I just downloaded your cookbook on my phone as a pdf file. I don’the know how, but … Hurray!

          Thank you, Jenny, for sharing your passion for good food and good health. And for sharing your artistic talents! The time and care is truly evident. Your photos are the best. ~ D.

  16. Vida

    Downloaded without a problem. Thanks for the cookbook and more recipes to try!

  17. Salwa

    Hi I love your recipes I am tying to download your e book but it failed so please how can you help me .many thanks

    • Jenny

      The download works best on a desktop computer. You can not download this book to a tablet but you should be able to view it there.

  18. DB

    Jenny, Thank you for the cookbook. I love watching you on your YouTube videos and enjoy the content of your WebSite as well. Looks like you enjoy your kitchen and cooking as much as I enjoy mine. Making recipes better, healthier and faster is what we are all try to do so your techniques and recipes are so welcome. Keep up the great work. -DB

  19. Evelyn

    Hi Jenny

    I am Evelyn. I live in Sri Lanka. Thank you for the wonderful recipes you share with us. Your recipes look so yummy, and the colors are so awesome in your kitchen. I love those different spatulas and knives and the little colored bowls and dishes you use. I also like the white pantry cupboards. And I also like the aprons you wear – esp the white and black polka dotted one. That video reminds me of fairyland and fairytales.

    Thank you for the lovely recipes. I have been watching your recipe videos and logging on to your website for the past couple of weeks. They are so amazing.

    I want to thank you for your free cookbook, and I have downloaded same. Its wonderful. Thank you very much

    All the best and look forward to see more lovely recipes

    • Jenny

      Thanks for the nice note. I try to make my videos and pictures as colorful and fun as possible so it’s nice that it is appreciated.

      • Doris

        happen to see yr blog by luck. Love all your colourful spatulas, yr colourful blue workboard for rolling yr dough. where did you buy all those items.
        You’re wonderful cook. Thanks for yr simplified explanation & illustration.

        • Jenny

          I find most of my colorful items at places like Sur La Table, Pier One, World Market, Target, and even some hardware stores. The blue board came from Star Restaurant Supply here in Los Angeles.

  20. Gail

    I am so anxious to try your healthier pumpkin pie and pie crust.
    My sister, my Best Friend , died three years ago …thank you for giving me a Cyber-best friend who is so kind, warm and sharing. I thank you for the awesome cookbook gift, too -:)

    I think I am finally looking forward again to Christmas.
    God bless you and yours,
    Gail. In Virginia

    • Jenny

      Gail, I’m glad that I can bring you a little joy here on the internet. I hope you have a good holiday.

  21. Denise Black

    Hi Jenny, I tried your Sweet Potato Chocolate Cake recipe and it was just awesome!!! My hubby doesn’t like sweet potatoes so I did not tell him what was in the cake. After 2 days, the cake is gone. I told him last night and he was amazed at how good it was and that he never once tasted the sweet potato. Thank you for your wonderful recipes, I look forward to trying as many as I can. Take care,,,,,,

    Denise Black

  22. Gail Moore

    Dear Jenny, thank you so much for all your great recipes! My family and I have tried a lot of them so far. Thank you for your free cook book, you are the greatest. I personally love watching you in your videos and your sweet sense of humor. Gail

  23. Bruce Nelson

    After downloading your new book I found that when I go to search for a word, after typing a couple of letters the pages disappear and it will not go to the word that I search for. I have a Macbook pro and possibly that is the reason.
    That said, thank you for posting your new book. Very professionally done with a wealth of info.

    • Jenny

      I don’t believe that option will work on the downloadable book but on my website you can search for recipes by word (and quite a few of my book recipes are already here on the site).

  24. Hanna

    Thank you very much for these wonderful recipes. Really appreciated it.

    God Bless,

  25. Porsche Leigh

    Thank you 🙂 I especially enjoy your cinnamon rolls recipe <<<< tried it and it works nice.

  26. shirlyn

    Hi Jenny

    Thank you so much for a wonderful gift. Despite your tight schedule, you’ve gone extra-mile to share with us your recipes generously. Kudos to you.

  27. Marianna

    Wow!!! this is great!!! this is just what I needed!!! Thank you so much for all your hard work and great recipes!!!

  28. Ana

    Hi! Jenny
    I am very happy we can share all of your recipes and want to say best wishes and congradulations.
    Ana from portugal

  29. Betsy

    Oh, thank you so much, your cookbook looks fantastic – just dying to try your recipes. Good photography too. Thanks a lot.
    Best wishes,

  30. Dianne

    Thank you so so much for your generous gifts.The cookbook, the wonderful recipes and your delightful humor.

  31. Elizabeth

    I love trying out your recipes so this is a real treat . Had to stop looking after the first photo – blueberry pancakes . Got way too hungry looking at it & it ‘s past 10 p.m. . Thank you Jenny – I very much appreciate your kindness !

  32. Eva

    Thank you so much for your generosity, Jenny. You are such an inspirational person and one of the genuine good-guys in this world. Thanks so much for sharing your life and recipes with us.

  33. Jeanene in Mi

    You are awesome. I love your site, videos and your love of cooking. I just tripped over one of your recipes on Pinterest. it lead me to your website. Love it! What a pleasant suprise! It’s so nice to see the true Jenny.
    I confess, I didn’t have any respect for you at the time of the the Jenny Jones show. Even a coworker was a juror on your court case. I could not understand the value of shows like that. Well, that was then. glad to know the new Jenny..
    Thanks for sharing your self.I look forward to you’re emails, videos etc. I am so excited to download your cookbook.
    Thanks, Jenny.

  34. Camie

  35. J Bruce Nelson

    Jenny, you are the best. Your recipes are great and your gift of sharing and giving to others is amazing. From your bio I can see your are a multi-talented woman who loves life and food. Thank you again for sharing your wonderful talents.

    Bruce Nelson

Leave a Comment to Jenny


text:
Pellatt United Fire Fighters (PUFF) – Keewatin, ON

Nov 9, 2018

Pictured above is a presentation of the Fire Services Exemplary Service Medal to Fire Chief Barry Bennett (left) by PUFF Chairman Nick Vander Zande (right) in recognition of Bennett’s 30+ years of service to the volunteer fire department.

PUFF is a rural fire department with no access to fire hydrants, which explains the need for portable water pumps. Their 17 volunteers provide fire and emergency medical first response services to 2,000 year-round residents but that number doubles when vacationers arrive to enjoy the abundance of lakes and forests.

The largest volume of calls is for brush fires and many of the homes are difficult to access. Water needs to be transported by tanker from the nearest available lake, river or pond. A new water pump would reduce the turnaround time for tankers by more than half.

When an alarm sounds, it’s often women who respond to man the radios, act as babysitters, and provide food and coffee for the crew.

Funds are always needed and the team raises money through pancake breakfasts, barbeques, bingo, raffles, bass tournaments, and even lottery calendar sales with pictures of the local firefighters in action.

“Through all of this we have become a much closer knit community,” they wrote. “Prior to the formation of the fire teams, people tended to stay in their own little area and didn’t know or socialize with other people. The fire halls changed all that. They have become a focal point and many friendships have been formed.”

I called board chairman, Nick Vander Zande with the good news. He said, “Wow, this is super to hear. It will go a long way.” He said they respond to a lot of wild fires over the 200 square miles under their care. Congratulations to the whole team at PUFF!

Here are photos of the new pump:

Jenny's Heroes Pump Package

Jenny's Heroes Pump Package

Leave a Comment


text:
Jessica Huynh /hwɪn/

Currently a Senior Clinical NLP Specialist at Linguamatics, an IQVIA company; master’s in computational linguistics, undergrad in computer science & linguistics, both from Brandeis University.

I post about (mis)adventures in web development, recipes, and other things that come to mind.

Recent posts

Đậu hũ nhồi thịt sơt cà chua

Đậu hũ nhồi thịt sơt cà chua (tofu stuffed with meat/pork braised in tomato sauce) is one of my favorite dishes to make—it’s really simple, doesn’t require a ton of fuss, but tastes good. This is an adaptation of my mom’s recipe. Normally the tofu is fried but I didn’t do that here (it’s too warm for that right now!). I also added in straw mushrooms. I’m a believer in the “never-too-many-mushrooms” school of culinary arts.

You don’t need any special tools for this. I used a simple stainless steel sauce pan from IKEA. If I were frying the tofu, I’d use my wok. Or you could buy pre-fried tofu if you’re in an area with a large East or Southeast Asian population.

Read More…


text:
Rider Help

Code Inspection: Member can be made private (non-private accessibility)

This is a solution-wide code inspection. It only works when the solution-wide analysis is enabled.

Rider is smart enough to determine where a particular class member is actually being used. If it isn’t used outside the type or derived types, Rider will offer to mark the member as private. If the member is used in derived classes too, Rider will offer to mark it as protected.

Please note that these recommendations need to be considered before being automatically applied. After all, you may be creating a public API, or you may be making types intended to be accessed in non-standard ways (e.g., reflection). In this case, constraining visibility might not be a good idea. If necessary, you can always suppress the inspection.

The best way to suppress Rider inspections for an implicitly used public symbol is to mark this symbol with either [UsedImplicitly] or [PublicApi] attribute from the JetBrains.Annotations namespace.
You can also suppress these inspections with any custom attribute. To do so, mark the definition of this attribute with [MeansImplicitUse] attribute.

Last modified: 11 October 2017

See Also


text:
RubyMine 2017.1 Help

Insert, Delete and Navigation Keys

This section describes default mappings for the Insert, Delete and the navigation keys.

ShortcutFunctionUse this shortcut to...
Delete Delete Depending on the context:
  • In the editor: delete selected symbol/block.
  • In the Find tool window: exclude items from the search results.
  • In the Version Control tool window: delete an item from a changelist.
  • In other views: remove the selected item or items.
Down Move downMove the caret one line down.
End Move to Line EndMove the caret to the end of line.
Home Move to Line StartMove the caret to the beginning of line.
Insert Toggle Insert/OverwriteToggle Insert/Overwrite modes in the editor. The shape of the cursor changes according to the current mode.
Left Move leftMove the caret one character to the left.
Page Down Page downMove the caret one page up.
Page Up Page upMove the caret one page up.
Right Move rightMove the caret one character to the right.
Tab In the editor:
  • With any selection: indent selected line(s).
  • Without any selection: insert a tab symbol (or corresponding number of space.characters).

In a lookup list:

  • No code after the caret in the editor: select an item (like Enter)
  • Some code after the caret in the editor: select an item and replace the code after the caret with it.
Up Move upMove the caret one line up.

See Also

Last modified: 18 July 2017


text:
YouTrack InCloud 2020.4 Help

Working with Reports

On this page, you'll find descriptions for the general operations that you can perform with reports in YouTrack. To access these options, click the Reports link in the application header.

Create a Report

You can create and view reports that help you keep track of the statistics that are most important to you. The procedure for creating a report (regardless of its type) is quite simple.

To create a report:

  1. Click the Reports link in the main menu.

  2. Click the link for the type of report that you want to create.

  3. In the settings page for the report, set the parameters for the new report.

    new report settings
    To learn more about the settings for a specific report, refer to the page for the report that you want to create.

  4. When you are finished the with report settings, click the Create report button.

    • The report is sent to the processing queue of your YouTrack server.

    • When processing is finished, the new report is displayed.

Share a Report

YouTrack lets you configure the visibility of a report so you can share it with your colleagues. By default, a new report is only visible for the person who created it, its owner.

Sharing a report doesn't guarantee that every user or member of the group or project team can access it. To access the shared report, users and members of the selected groups and teams also require the Read Report permission in all of the projects that are stored in the settings for this report.

Keep in mind the following characteristics of shared reports:

  • Any user who can access the report can view its data. This means that users who haven't been granted the Read Issue in the projects that are included in the report can still see issue data from these projects. Administrators can use the Read Report permission to block users from sharing data from projects that store sensitive information.

  • Any user who can view and use the shared report can recalculate it.

  • Any user who can edit the report can update its settings. This includes the setting for sharing the report with other users.

  • Users who have the Low-level Admin Read or Low-level Admin Write permission can view and edit any report, respectively.

The following options are available for all reports:

Can view and use

Determines who has access to view the report.

To share the report, select users, groups, and project teams from the list.

Can edit

Determines who has permission to view and edit the report settings.

It's possible to grant permission to edit a report without granting permission to view and use it. In this case, members of the group or project team that has permission to edit won't see the report in the sidebar but can still access and update the report using the direct link.

To share a report:

  1. Create and configure a new report or edit an existing report that you want to share.

  2. From the Can view and use list, select one or more users, groups, and project teams.

    share report with team

  3. Click the Save button.

    • The report is made accessible to the selected users and members of the selected groups and project teams.

    • For users who have the Read Report permission in all of the projects that are stored in the settings for this report, the report is visible in the Reports list.

Edit a Report

As the owner of a report, you can modify the report parameters at any time.

To edit an existing report:

  1. Open the report that you want to edit.

  2. Click the Edit icon in the top right corner of the report.

  3. Edit the parameters of the report.

  4. When done, click the Save button.

    • The report is recalculated with the updated parameters.

Clone a Report

Cloning a report comes in handy in the following situations:

  • You want a report that is similar to an existing report but also want to continue using the original report.

  • You are not the owner of the original report and do not have permissions to edit its parameters.

To create a clone of a report:

  1. Open the report that you want to clone.

  2. Open the report settings:

    • If you are the report owner or a member of a group or team that has permission to edit the report, click the Edit icon.

    • If you don't have permission to edit the report, click the View settings icon.

    view report settings
  3. Click the Clone button.

    clone report

  4. Configure the settings for the new report.

  5. When done, click the Save button.

    • The report is created and calculated.

Delete a Report

If you no longer use a report, you can delete it. You can only delete reports that you created.

To delete a report:

  1. Locate the report that you want to delete in the sidebar.

  2. Click the Delete icon.

    delete report

  3. Confirm the deletion request in the dialog.

Alternatively, you can open the report in Edit and click the Delete button in the bottom-right corner of the page.

Recalculate a Report

YouTrack reports support both automatic and manual recalculation.

For automatic recalculation, the following general rules apply:

  • Issue distribution reports are recalculated automatically every 10 minutes.

  • Time-based reports (timeline, time management, and state transition) are recalculated according to the value that is stored in the Period setting.

  • You must refresh or open the report in order to get it recalculated even if the configured period has already expired. If the period has not expired yet, refreshing the report returns the data that was calculated for the previous period.

Once calculated, the report is saved in the database and is not updated automatically. When you need to view an up-to-date report, you must start report update manually.

To manually recalculate an existing report:

  1. Open the report that you want to update.

  2. Click the recalculate icon in the toolbar.

Download Report Data

YouTrack lets you download the data from a calculated report. Different options in the report header let you export the data as a CSV or Microsoft Excel file.

Download options are not supported for any of the Timeline Reports, the Gantt Chart, or the State Transition Report.

Use these options to upload report data to another application or use third-party software to compile custom reports.

To download report data:

  1. Open the report that contains the data you want to download.

  2. If necessary, recalculate the report.

  3. Click the corresponding option in the toolbar to download the data to a CSV or XLSX file.

    download report data
    • The report data is exported to your local directory.

    • The name of the report is used as the filename for the export file.

To prepare a report for printing, open it and click the print icon in the toolbar.

The report will be displayed in the print mode, which you can then print using the standard print function in your web browser.

Configure the Reports Sidebar

The left sidebar of the reports screen shows the list of reports that are available to you. The list itself is divided into two sections.

  • The Own Reports section shows the reports that you created yourself.

  • The Shared Reports section shows reports that other users have shared with you.

The sidebar lists your favorite reports. Other reports that are not your favorites are accessible from the drop-down menu in each section.

By default, each new report that you create is added to your list of favorites. If you want to hide reports that you don't work with often, you can remove them from your favorites. You can still access the report at any time from the Show more list.

To hide a report from the sidebar:

  1. Move the pointer over the name of the report that you want to hide.

  2. Click the Remove from favorites icon.

    Remove favorite report from sidebar.

To add a report to the sidebar:

  1. Click the Show more menu to the right of the report section header.

    • The complete list of reports is shown in the list.

  2. Move the pointer over the name of a report that you want to show in the sidebar and click the Add to favorites icon.

    Add a report to the sidebar.

Last modified: 28 October 2020


text:
Christmas Present: Kelly Clarkson’s ‘Wrapped in Red’

Kelly Clarkson has been a force in the more than a decade since she first became a star as the first winner of “American Idol.” Her career of course has sustained itself on the power of a continuous string of strong tracks and her beautiful voice (she could sing the phone book).  She didn’t rest in 2013, releasing some new tracks, a greatest hits CD, and a Christmas album, “Wrapped in Red.”

Similar to The Shins, Clarkson’s original tracks have a decidedly old school vibe, such as “Underneath the Christmas Tree,” heard/seen above. The sax breakdown, the old school rhythms, and so on feel familiar yet are quite modern, and Clarkson characteristically gives the song her all.

“Wrapped in Red” continues in that pattern with the 60s rhythms and feel to the track. I think this rivals “Underneath” as the highlight of the album; the mid-tempo nature of “Wrapped” gives Clarkson a bit more room to breathe and soar.

When she heads into more classic tracks, it plays it relatively safe, which is fine for an artist like Clarkson, but to me it’s not really the big selling point of the album.  That’s left for the originals, which add some new offerings to the holiday playlist.  Greg Kurstin (he sure pops up a lot around here) helmed the album, and his production touches, particularly on the originals, shine nicely, continuing a solid track record for Clarkson.  Fans of Clarkson, or of holiday music, will find a lot to like here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


text:
Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Citing this Article

Right click to copy or hit: ctrl+c (cmd+c on mac)

Published on 14.06.18 in Vol 20, No 6 (2018): June

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

    Original Paper

    Content, Quality, and Assessment Tools of Physician-Rating Websites in 12 Countries: Quantitative Analysis

    Institute of Communication and Health, Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland

    Corresponding Author:

    Fabia Rothenfluh, PhD

    Institute of Communication and Health

    Università della Svizzera italiana

    Via G. Buffi 13

    Lugano, 6900

    Phone: 41 058 666 4485

    Background: Websites on which users can rate their physician are becoming increasingly popular, but little is known about the website quality, the information content, and the tools they offer users to assess physicians. This study assesses these aspects on physician-rating websites in German- and English-speaking countries.

    Objective: The objective of this study was to collect information on websites with a physician rating or review tool in 12 countries in terms of metadata, website quality (transparency, privacy and freedom of speech of physicians and patients, check mechanisms for appropriateness and accuracy of reviews, and ease of page navigation), professional information about the physician, rating scales and tools, as well as traffic rank.

    Methods: A systematic Web search based on a set of predefined keywords was conducted on Google, Bing, and Yahoo in August 2016. A final sample of 143 physician-rating websites was analyzed and coded for metadata, quality, information content, and the physician-rating tools.

    Results: The majority of websites were registered in the United States (40/143) or Germany (25/143). The vast majority were commercially owned (120/143, 83.9%), and 69.9% (100/143) displayed some form of physician advertisement. Overall, information content (mean 9.95/25) as well as quality were low (mean 18.67/47). Websites registered in the United Kingdom obtained the highest quality scores (mean 26.50/47), followed by Australian websites (mean 21.50/47). In terms of rating tools, physician-rating websites were most frequently asking users to score overall performance, punctuality, or wait time in practice.

    Conclusions: This study evidences that websites that provide physician rating should improve and communicate their quality standards, especially in terms of physician and user protection, as well as transparency. In addition, given that quality standards on physician-rating websites are low overall, the development of transparent guidelines is required. Furthermore, attention should be paid to the financial goals that the majority of physician-rating websites, especially the ones that are commercially owned, pursue.

    J Med Internet Res 2018;20(6):e212

    The internet has become an invaluable resource for any kind of question or query one may search an answer for. The search and selection of a physician via the internet is no exception, especially if patient opinions can be easily obtained via the World Wide Web [1,2]. Physician-rating websites (PRWs) show numeric scores and textual appraisals about former patients’ encounters and experiences with a physician. However, not only do specialized websites for physician assessments offer user reviews of doctors but general commercial webpages such as Yelp also ask users to review medical professionals [3]. Yet the quality of PRWs and the rating tools they present to their users are largely unknown.

    The content and quality of PRWs is a concern for both medical practitioners and website users. The former are afraid of unjustified reviews that do not reflect the true nature of their actual medical performance [4]. Biases in the user and the data, the risk of false allegations combined with website providers’ negligence to systematically control PRW reviews, the anonymity of the ratings, as well as health care consumers’ inability to judge certain aspects of care lead physicians to doubt the usefulness of PRW reviews [5]. Health care consumers on the other hand desire more quality of care information to improve their choices but have difficulties using such reports because of the complexity of the material [6,7]. To sum up, both physicians and health care consumers demand quality standards on PRWs that increase transparency while protecting both parties’ freedom of speech and privacy. These insights call for an assessment of the availability and quality of PRWs to evaluate to what extent physicians’ and health care consumers’ worries are justified.

    Study Objectives

    A study assessing the quality, physician profile information, and rating tools present on PRWs across countries and languages has to our knowledge not yet been undertaken. This led us to the following research questions:

    1. Of what website quality are PRWs? Which aspects of quality are most frequently met that are largely missing?
    2. What information about the physicians and their practices is available on these websites?
    3. How and based on which scales can users rate a doctor online?
    4. How does quality and information content differ between countries?

    The website sample was collected through a Web search in August 2016 on the three largest search engines: Google, Bing, and Yahoo [8]. Web searches were conducted based on a list of keywords that were entered in English or German, based on the search country (Figure 1). Search engines were used with respective country codes (eg, in Germany we used search engine URLs ending in .de and in the United States URLs ending in .com) to mimic searches from residents looking for a doctor in their country. Websites were included in the sample if they fulfilled the following criteria: (1) accessibility in English or German, (2) retrievability via Web searches including one of the 12 preselected countries (United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Singapore, United Arab Emirates [Dubai], South Africa, Switzerland, Germany, and Austria), and (3) presence of ratings, evaluations, or written feedback sections to assess or rate physicians. We included PRWs from the United States and Germany in the study because the vast majority of publications up to date covered these two countries. To enlarge the sample, we included other countries where English or German is spoken. The first 100 webpages for each search term and engine were screened for the inclusion criteria, yielding a sample of N=208. The websites were coded from September 2016 to December 2016 and webcached. Examples of coded websites can be viewed in Figures 2 and 3 [9,10].

    The first part of our coding consisted of metadata, namely about the owner of the website, registration country, coverage area, or upgrade features. These indicators were coded for presence and absence and summarized in a table.

    Figure 1. Search term strings entered in Google, Bing, and Yahoo to collect the website sample.
    View this figure
    Figure 2. Screenshot of the physician-rating website registered in Switzerland.
    View this figure
    Figure 3. Screenshot of the physician-rating website registered in India.
    View this figure

    Website Quality

    The second section of the coding focused on website quality. On the basis of literature [4,5,11-13], five quality dimensions for PRWs quality were developed and indicators accordingly derived. According to the definition applied in this study, a high quality PRW (1) publishes transparent, accurate, and neutral content from evident sources (eg, clear separation of advertisement and content); (2) respects the privacy and freedom of speech of both physician (eg, informs physicians about new ratings and asks physicians to reply to reviews) and health care consumers (eg, publishes anonymous reviews and verifies the identity of reviewers); (3) has check mechanisms in place to ensure the accuracy and appropriateness of information content reviews (eg, number of reviews that a health care consumer can write is limited and all reviews are checked before publication); and (4) is easy to use and navigate (eg, has filters present and search masks available). The breakdown of these dimensions led to 47 indicators, which can be found in Multimedia Appendix 1. The indicators were not weighted because the opposing views about the weight of individual indicators from physicians’ and patients’ perspectives can hardly be reconciled (eg, although physicians oppose anonymous reviews, patients highly value them as they fret about the impact of a negative review on future care).

    Professional Information

    The third section on information content consisted of 25 items covering information on the professional and educational background of the physician, practice access, and contact information, as well as personal data about the doctor. These indicators were developed iteratively; first, indicators were derived from a scoping review by Victoor and colleagues [14] and a study by Rothenfluh and Schulz [15] on aspects that were cited to be for patients when choosing a physician. In a second step, during the pretest, more information items were added until saturation was reached. All items that appeared during the actual coding and did not fit into the indicators collected during the development and pretest were ordered into separate categories labeled other.

    Scales or Rating Tools

    A fourth section of the codebook was dedicated to the scales or rating tools available on PRWs to assess a physician. An earlier study by Rothenfluh and Schulz [15] identified indicators that are, according to physicians and health care consumers, important to identify a good physician and assessable by patients. These indicators were developed based on Donabedian’s quality of care model [16,17] that subdivides care quality into dimensions of structure (infrastructure, staff, equipment, organization, and accessibility), process (technical and interpersonal skill of the physician), and outcome (results of the treatment) of health care. All rating tools on the websites in this study’s sample were coded based on this structure.

    Website Traffic Rank

    Furthermore, the website traffic rank, an indicator for website popularity, was recorded for each webpage on January 26, 2017, based on the Alexa Global Traffic Ranking [18]. For each website, both the traffic rank globally as well as the national ranking were recorded.

    Coding Procedure

    The codebook was pretested twice based on 10 websites each. Adjustments were made where necessary. To assure the reliability of the data, a second coder was trained based on the codebook (three sessions of 3 hours). The level of agreement between the first and second coder was compared after each session and differences were discussed. This process was repeated three times until sufficient agreement was reached. Then, the second coder independently coded a randomly drawn subsample of 29 websites (20%), which is sufficient according to Riffe and colleagues [19].

    Coding Procedure and Intercoder Reliability

    On the basis of our Web search, the initial sample of websites consisted of 208 websites, which was consolidated to 143 during the coding process because of temporary inaccessibility of websites, deletion or cessation, or the disappearance of an online review function. The intercoder reliability based on Krippendorff alpha [20] was satisfactory (average over all items alpha=.95) after five items were excluded because of agreement below alpha=.667, which is the lowest cutoff according to Krippendorff [20,21]. Among the excluded items were the completeness of the presented physician profiles and the format and source in which the profile information was presented (eg, open-ended text sections filled in by the physician, information provided by the provider, or not identifiable).

    In terms of metadata (Table 1), we found that the vast majority of websites were operated by commercial for-profit companies (120/143, 83.9%). Business models included various profile upgrade options for physicians that are often payable through monthly or annual fees (see detailed features in Table 1). Such benefits included that physicians could pay for commercial services (42/143, 29.4%) such as online appointment booking, or to enter the biddings to offer a client treatments (especially in dentistry). Furthermore, doctors could pay for their profiles to be further up or listed first on users’ search results (51/143, 35.7%).

    Website Quality

    A quality index of 47 items was calculated (see Multimedia Appendix 1), awarding one point per quality criterion fulfilled, yielding scores between 0 and 47. The mean quality score was 18.67 (SD 4.13), ranging from 8 to 29 points, with 69.3% (99/143) of the sample scoring between 15 and 22 points. Overall, the three highest individual website quality scores of the 143 coded websites were attained by one website registered in Germany, one in Austria, and one in the United Kingdom. The individual websites with the lowest website quality were a website registered in Singapore and one in Canada reaching only 8 points or 9 points, respectively.

    Table 1. Website metadata and features offered (N=143).
    View this table
    Table 2. Information available on doctors’ profile pages about the physician and practice (N=143).
    View this table

    Overall, indicators related to transparency, such as the type of website provider (132/143, 92.3%) and website background information (eg, website owner [122/143, 85.3%] or terms and conditions [128/143, 89.5%]) were available on the vast majority of websites. Furthermore, basic quality assurance criteria such as limiting the number of reviews by the same user were present in almost three-quarters of websites. However, the assurance of transparency proved to be less common when related to financial benefits for the website provider. For example, 75.5% (108/143) of websites did not clearly separate advertisement from content, and more than 69.9% (100/143) had some form of physician ad present. Furthermore, HON code certifications, a label that marks trustworthy health and medical information [22], were only displayed on 5.6% (8/143) of the cases. Statistical quality assurance indicators such as a minimum number of reviews online before reviews are displayed were largely absent (only in 9.3%, 13/143 present). Remarkably, only 4.2% (6/143) of the websites stated that they notify the physicians whose profile goes online. This makes keeping track of their potentially numerous online profiles difficult for physicians. Furthermore, merely 11.9% (17/143) provided the physician’s medical board registration number, which can be an indicator for users that may help him identify physicians who passed the country’s requirements to practice medicine.

    Professional Information

    When Web users search for a doctor online, the amount and kind of information they find about the doctor and his or her practice may help users’ decide whether to consult a certain doctor or not. Therefore, information content was added up to a score between 0 and 25 (see indicators in Table 2). With a mean of 9.95 (SD 4.01), the vast majority of websites had little information available about the doctors listed. The information most commonly available about doctors were the address of the practice (136/143, 94.4%), the practice phone number (118/143, 81.9%), and directions to find the practice (111/143, 77.1%), which resembles the information one could also retrieve from a phone book.

    Quality and Information Content on Physician-Rating Websites in Different Countries

    To shed light on potential differences between countries’ PRW information content and quality, the websites were split based on their registration country. According to our quality measure (0-47 points), websites registered in the United Kingdom had the best quality PRWs (mean 26.50, SD 1.00), followed by Australia (mean 21.50, SD 0.71) and Germany (mean 20.72, SD 4.12). It has to be noted though that both the United Kingdom and Australia had few websites registered in their countries and low variability compared with, for example, Germany, where the two highest quality websites were registered (see Table 3). In terms of information content (score between 0-25), websites registered in Australian scored the highest (mean 15.50, SD 6.64), followed by German ones (mean 10.00, SD 2.48).

    Numerous websites (35/143) had multinational coverage areas, which may or may not overlap with the registration country according to which the countries are listed in Table 3. For example, Canada had only 3 websites registered, but 10 pages covered physicians practicing in Canada. The United States on the other hand had 40 websites registered there, but only 28 exclusively displayed physician profiles from doctors practicing in the United States. Therefore, a comparison of websites across countries should be interpreted with caution. It should further be noted that the quality scores of websites not registered in one of our sample countries had the lowest quality, which points to potential legal issues that may emerge based on this gap between registration country and coverage area.

    Scales or Rating Tools

    PRWs may invite users to score doctors based on numeric scales, ask for written feedback, or a combination of both. In our sample, 15.3% (22/143) of the websites asked for numeric physician assessments only, 4.2% (6/143) for written reviews exclusively, and 76.9% (110/143) provided the option to give feedback based on both predefined rating scales as well as to type reviews or testimonials. Most frequently, PRW users were invited to rate the overall treatment encounter (75/143, 52.1%), punctuality and wait time in practice (51/143, 35.7%) or for the next appointment (27/143, 18.9%), and whether the user would recommend that specific doctor (44/143, 30.8%). Furthermore, users may be asked to rate the office environment (eg, practice comfort and cleanliness: 33/143, 23.1%), or the friendliness and courteousness of the staff (32/143, 22.4%). Looking at the assessment tools in terms of broader dimensions, one or several indicators on interpersonal aspects of care could be assessed on 65 (45.5%) of the coded websites. Specifically, information provision by the physician (comprehensiveness, clarity, questions answered, etc), bedside manner, helpfulness, and empathy (25/143, 17.4%), or if the doctor spent sufficient time with the patient (17/143, 11.8%) could be rated. Yet, scales on which users were asked to score one or several technical aspects of care were less frequently present (37/143, 25.9%). For example, few websites asked users to evaluate the physician’s knowledge (16/143, 11.2%), competence (9/143, 6.3%), or the correctness of the diagnosis (9/143, 6.3%). Users were inquired to rate aspects concerning one or several rating items on the outcome of care on 24 (16.8%) of the websites. Assessment items included, for example, the presence and quality of the follow-up (9/143, 6.3%) or the efficiency of the treatment (8/143, 5.6%). Further rating scale items can be found in Table 4.

    Table 3. Website quality and information by registration country in descending order of quality.
    View this table
    Table 4. Rating scale items present on physician rating websites.
    View this table

    Website Traffic Rank

    The website traffic rank on Alexa was recorded on January 26, 2017, serving as an indicator of the popularity of the PRWs in this study in their registration country. First, it should be noted that 8 websites did not have an Alexa global rank [18], while 44 were not ranked locally. The most frequently visited website was Yelp on a global scale, ranked on position 282, followed by Web MD ranked number 501 and Yellow Pages on position 1634 worldwide. Given that Yelp and Yellow Pages are primarily directories, they attract most likely the vast majority of their traffic through webpage visits unrelated to physician searches or review writing. The website most popular within a country was Herold in Austria on rank 86 nationally, followed by Just Dial in India positioned on rank 63, and by NHS Choices in Great Britain on national rank 143. Herold as well as Just Dial are also first and foremost directories, likely attracting most of their traffic through address searches, whereas users may not even be aware of its function to rate doctors. NHS Choices on the other hand is Britain’s public health care system’s webpage and therefore the first point of entry or first address about health issues in the United Kingdom.

    Principal Findings

    This study assessed the quality, information content, and rating tools on websites providing physician rating in 12 countries of German or English language. Most websites were registered in the United States and Germany. Yet, one has to differentiate between registration country and coverage area of those websites as this has important legal implications for the physicians listed. On average, quality and information content of PRWs in various countries differed tremendously, whereas the quality of the majority did not even achieve half of the maximum quality points possible.

    To our knowledge, this is the first study that analyzed the quality, physician information content, and rating tools of doctor rating websites in 12 countries on a broad basis. Prior content analyses that focused on the structure and content on PRWs were more restrictive in their inclusion criteria only coding websites that exclusively displayed physicians, leading to smaller sample sizes of 8 [23] or 28 websites, respectively [24]. Due to our broader inclusion criteria (see Methods section), we analyzed a more heterogeneous sample, including all websites that had some form of physician rating or review present, consequently providing a broader picture.

    The majority of the websites in our sample was commercially owned (120/143, 83.9%). On such profit-focused websites, revenue is often generated via upgrades of physician profiles. This can be beneficial for both patients and physicians if features such as online appointment bookings are offered. However, other upgrades such as purchased top listing positions, which were present on 35.7% (51/143) of the websites, are problematic as they are often not evident as such to the user. As known from research in marketing, because of primacy or position effects, people tend to choose the first option on a list (eg, [25-27]). However, a purchased top physician listing may not reflect the actual quality of the doctor, thereby potentially misleading users.

    Overall, the quality of the websites in our sample was mediocre. The vast majority attained less than half of the maximum score (between 15-22 points), whereas the highest quality website attained 29 out of 47 points. Additional information such as surgeon volume [28] or physician notification when the profile goes online were absent in almost 95% (6/143) of all websites. Furthermore, only a quarter of websites contained physicians’ replies to reviews, even though health care consumers report physician feedback to be crucial [13].

    New and transparent quality guidelines are called for. Such quality guidelines should strengthen the rights of both physicians and health care consumers. In Germany, such guidelines have been developed. However, as the results of this study show, this did not necessarily translate into higher quality PRWs overall [11]. Independent, nonprofit companies such as the HON code society [22] for the quality of health information have paved the way toward globally recognized labels. For the development of a PRW quality label, a mixed committee of patients and physicians should be involved, so that both patients’ and doctors’ wishes and concerns find their perspectives and needs represented in the development of such a label. Given the diversity of medical specializations (ie, general practitioners may require a different skill set than neurosurgeons) and the knowledge base of patient (ie, a very informed long-term diabetes patient may have a different skill to assess a doctor than a patient who visits a doctor for the first time in 20 years to find out that he is suffering from diabetes), PRWs should pay tribute to such differences.

    In terms of what users are asked to rate about their doctors, we found that overall scores or aspects of the organization, such as waiting time, appeared most frequently. Outcome of care and technical aspects of the physician are less often listed rating tools. Furthermore, rating websites that asked users to assess structural or interpersonal aspects of their care ranked higher on website quality than websites on which those rating scales were absent. This is in line with previous studies that report that overall scores, communication, and structural factors are the most frequently available doctor assessment tools [23,29]. Emmert and colleagues [23] further found that only a minority of PRWs asked users to assess process quality or treatment outcomes [23], which our study confirms.

    A study by Rao and colleagues [30] reported that health care consumers failed to correctly judge technical quality of care aspects, whereas other studies suggest a positive association between PRW ratings and objective care measures [31], or Facebook recommendations and hospital readmissions [32]. Some studies suggest that there is a knowledge gap between doctors and patients related to medical knowledge [5], which makes it difficult for health care consumers to accurately evaluate a physician’s medical performance. A study by Rothenfluh and Schulz [15] reports further that physicians and health care consumers are indeed reflective of their own capabilities to assess certain care aspects, especially if highly technical. The findings from this study evidence, however, that only a minority of websites present technical or medical criteria (37/143, 25.9%) to be assessed by patients, which may be a reassuring finding for doctors. Hence, these findings can debilitate some ethical concerns raised in the PRW literature (see [4,5]).

    Beyond numeric reviews, written patient testimonials should also be focused on more in this context. In our sample, patient narratives have been present on 81.1% (116/143) of the PRWs we analyzed. These narratives have been promoted as fruitful tools to obtain patient quality of care feedback, yet, it is advocated that they should be collected based on strict standards, showing promising results [33]. Our study revealed that only 26.6% (38/143) of the pages we analyzed provided instructions on how to provide meaningful and appropriate written testimonials. Furthermore, not even a third (30.8%, 44/143) of the websites in our sample systematically screened all patient reviews before they went online. This calls for action and enforcement of stricter quality guidelines on PRWs. Furthermore, given that numeric physician ratings are often not in line with written reviews, they can also cause contradictions within reviews [34]. Hence, further research is needed on how ratings, as well as narratives, could be more effectively elicited to provide meaningful and valuable feedback for physicians and insightful information for patients.

    The quality of the websites differed between the 12 countries, with websites registered in the United Kingdom and Australia scoring highest. Yet, the registration country was not necessarily equivalent to the website’s coverage area. This could create difficulties, especially for doctors who want to take legal action against false or defamatory reviews. Even though there are the first publications on the legal grounds of PRWs, such as applying defamation law and medical nondisclosure agreements [12], the situation remains country-specific and complex. Newspaper articles on court cases in various countries, including Europe and North America, show that actions taken by physicians against defamatory comments are sometimes, but not always, successful [35-37]. A court decision in Germany shows though that the law increasingly recognizes the physicians’ perspectives on PRWs, especially when business interests compromise the neutrality of the displayed information. A ruling by the German High Court forces a PRW to delete doctors’ profiles when the doctors explicitly request for it. A PRW was sued because it displayed advertisements of upgraded doctor profiles on detail pages of physicians without such an upgrade, putting the doctors with a nonupgraded profile into a disadvantageous position [38]; Doctors could not request the removal of their profiles. The new ruling by the German High Court changes this situation. As a consequence, this ruling may change the landscape of physician profile upgrades in other countries as well, favoring transparency, while punishing practices that may distort users’ perception, such as profile upgrades.

    Beyond a discussion and further research on legal issues on PRWs, country-specific differences in terms of the number, content, and quality of such websites may also be related to the health systems in which they operate. A health care system such as that of the United Kingdom is publicly financed and therefore leaves less choice to patients [39]. In countries such as the United States, on the contrary, individuals pay their health care expenses mostly out of their pocket [40]. Hence, PRWs in such systemically diverse countries may also lead to the emergence of dissimilar PRWs. Self-payers may therefore be more interested in comparisons of physicians, potentially explaining the large number of PRWs in the United States compared with, for example, the United Kingdom. However, these are just hypotheses, calling for further investigation.

    The large number of websites that we found, for example, in Germany or the Unites States, point to a challenge doctors face; they have to stay on top of incoming reviews and to respond to them. Given the large number of review websites, this poses a daunting task, especially if websites do not inform doctors when their profiles or a review on them goes online. Only 14.0% (20/143) of the websites in our sample stated to inform doctors when a new review on them is posted, and 4.2% (6/143) notify physicians when their profile goes live. Given that physicians already have extraordinarily long working hours [41], replying to patient comments on such numerous websites in a timely manner can become burdensome, or even overwhelming [42]. It is therefore not surprising that only 34% of physicians surveyed in the United States reported to have made changes to their online profiles [43], even though the importance of responses to posted reviews is highly important for patients [13]. This situation has already opened up a new business opportunity: marketing firms offer physician profile maintenance at a cost [44-46]. This development is alarming because contrary to creating a physician-patient dialogue to improve quality of care [47] it outsources this potentially valuable feedback loop.

    This study pointed to various shortcomings on websites that offer physician rating tools, reaching from low quality and limited information content to biased physician profile display. Nevertheless, online patient ratings of care quality can provide valuable and timely insights into shortcomings in care quality. Several studies have hinted at the association between objective care quality and patient feedback [32,48,49]. For example, a study by Glover and colleagues showed a significant association between Facebook ratings and hospital readmission rates, whereby lower ratings were associated with higher readmission rates [32]. Furthermore, patient ratings have the potential to change patients’ choice of doctors or hospitals, thereby encouraging doctors to adjust their practicing based on negative reviews [48]. This has been evidenced in a German study that showed how doctors who read their negative reviews and also responded to them, make an effort to improve the aspects that were criticized in their work [47]. Hence, the need for the public to be involved in quality of care reporting is increasingly suggested [49,50]. Yet, the assurance of quality and content on PRWs asks for further research and knowledge translation into practice.

    Given that the vast majority of PRWs in our study was commercially owned, it remains questionable whether more neutral providers such as nonprofit organizations could outperform the existing websites in terms of traffic at the present state. As almost a third of websites sell profile upgrades or higher listing positions to physicians, a sign or label should clearly point out the absence of such business models. This can raise users’ awareness and incentivize commercial websites to change their business strategy. Furthermore, a label on PRWs could serve as quality assurance certification that helps both physicians and patients to better navigate toward ethical and high-quality physician-rating webpages. In addition, the number of reviews would have to be increased; the more reviews are present, the higher the statistical representativeness and the less subject single reviews are to outliers. As an outcome, reviews would be created in an environment safe for both parties, inspiring health care improvements and constructive dialogue, thereby ultimately raising transparency and quality in health care.

    This study has to be considered under certain limitations. First, as the internet is a fast-changing environment, this content analysis of PRWs only provides a momentary picture of the situation in the 12 countries included in our sample. To respond to this issue, we provide readers with insight into the websites as they were when they were coded in the form of webcaching. Yet, webcached sites may not necessarily provide the same user experience.

    Second, the Web search for PRWs only included pages that appeared based on the outlined search terms. The search terms we applied may not be complete though because of regional differences in search strings. Hence, some websites offering rating functions of physicians may not have been included in the sample.

    Third, this content analysis was limited to information that was visible when users accessed the website (publicly available without user registration). However, it is possible that websites adhered to quality criteria in the version available to registered users, which we as unregistered visitors failed to notice. As a result, this study only attempts to draw conclusions based on publicly available data.

    Fourth, the indicators comprising the website quality score were not weighted. Although it is undebated that some indicators are very important (eg, physicians can be high listing positions), other indicators are difficult to weight. For example, whether reviews should be published anonymously is debated among doctors and patients. Doctors value transparent publication of reviewers’ names and demand that when they are reviewed and rated, the authors of such reviews should reveal their identities as well. For patients on the other hand, it is crucial that their opinions remain anonymous as they fret about the impact of negative reviews on their future care encounters with the same or other providers. Hence, we opted to not weight the single indicators but to calculate a simple mean and to point the reader to the table where all indicators are listed separately. This way, the reader can draw his or her own conclusions.

    This study evidences that websites that provide physician rating should improve and communicate their quality standards, especially in terms of physician and user protection, as well as transparency. In addition, given that quality standards on PRWs are low overall, the development of transparent guidelines is required.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    Multimedia Appendix 1

    Quality criteria fulfillment levels.

    PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 72KB

    1. Hanauer DA, Zheng K, Singer DC, Gebremariam A, Davis MM. Public awareness, perception, and use of online physician rating sites. J Am Med Assoc 2014 Feb 19;311(7):734-735. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    2. Emmert M, Meier F, Pisch F, Sander U. Physician choice making and characteristics associated with using physician-rating websites: cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res 2013 Aug;15(8):e187 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    3. Merchant RM, Volpp KG, Asch DA. Learning by listening-improving health care in the era of yelp. J Am Med Assoc 2016 Dec 20;316(23):2483-2484. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    4. Strech D. Ethical principles for physician rating sites. J Med Internet Res 2011 Dec;13(4):e113 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    5. Patel S, Cain R, Neailey K, Hooberman L. General practitioners’ concerns about online patient feedback: findings from a descriptive exploratory qualitative study in England. J Med Internet Res 2015 Dec 8;17(12):e276 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    6. Zwijnenberg NC, Hendriks M, Bloemendal E, Damman OC, de Jong JD, Delnoij DM, et al. Patients’ need for tailored comparative health care information: a qualitative study on choosing a hospital. J Med Internet Res 2016 Nov 28;18(11):e297 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    7. Peters E, Dieckmann N, Dixon A, Hibbard JH, Mertz CK. Less is more in presenting quality information to consumers. Med Care Res Rev 2007 Apr;64(2):169-190. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    8. eBIZ MBA. 2017. Top 15 Most Popular Search Engines   URL: [WebCite Cache]
    9. Okdoc Quality Improvement.   URL: [WebCite Cache]
    10. Mouthshut. Doctors   URL: [accessed 2016-11-30] [WebCite Cache]
    11. Ärztliches Zentrum für Qualität in der Medizin. 2011. Gute Praxis Bewertungsportale: Qualitätsanforderungen für Arztbewertungsportale [in German]   URL: [WebCite Cache]
    12. Lee SD. “I hate my doctor”: reputation, defamation, and physician-review websites. Health Matrix Clevel 2013;23(2):573-606. [Medline]
    13. Patel S, Cain R, Neailey K, Hooberman L. Exploring patients' views toward giving web-based feedback and ratings to general practitioners in England: a qualitative descriptive study. J Med Internet Res 2016 Aug 05;18(8):e217 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    14. Victoor A, Delnoij DM, Friele RD, Rademakers JJ. Determinants of patient choice of healthcare providers: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res 2012 Aug 22;12:272 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Rothenfluh F, Schulz PJ. Physician rating websites: what aspects are important to identify a good doctor, and are patients capable of assessing them? A mixed-methods approach including physicians' and health care consumers' perspectives. J Med Internet Res 2017 May 1;19(5):e127 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it be assessed? J Am Med Assoc 1988;260(12):1743-1748. [Medline]
    17. Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Q 2005;83(4):691-729 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Alexa.   URL: [accessed 2018-03-30] [WebCite Cache]
    19. Riffe D, Lacy S, Fico F. Analyzing Media Messages: Using Quantitative Content Analysis in Research. Second Edition. Mahwah, NJ; London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2005.
    20. Krippendorff K. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Second Edition. California: SAGE Publications; 2004.
    21. Krippendorff K. Reliability in content analysis. Human Comm Res 2004 Jul;30(3):411-433. [CrossRef]
    22. Health on the Net Foundation. The HON Code of Conduct for medical and health Web sites (HONcode)   URL: [WebCite Cache]
    23. Emmert M, Sander U, Esslinger AS, Maryschok M, Schöffski O. Public reporting in Germany: the content of physician rating websites. Methods Inf Med 2012 Nov;51(2):112-120. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Lagu T, Metayer K, Moran M, Ortiz L, Priya A, Goff SL, et al. Website characteristics and physician reviews on commercial physician-rating websites. J Am Med Assoc 2017 Feb 21;317(7):766-768. [CrossRef]
    25. Bar-Hillel M. Position effects in choice from simultaneous displays: a conundrum solved. Perspect Psychol Sci 2015 Jul;10(4):419-433. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    26. Ert E, Fleischer A. Mere position effect in booking hotels online. J Travel Res 2014 Nov 20;55(3):311-321. [CrossRef]
    27. Mantonakis A, Rodero P, Lesschaeve I, Hastie R. Order in choice: effects of serial position on preferences. Psychol Sci 2009 Nov;20(11):1309-1312. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. Segal J, Sacopulos M, Sheets V, Thurston I, Brooks K, Puccia R. Online doctor reviews: do they track surgeon volume, a proxy for quality of care? J Med Internet Res 2012 Apr 10;14(2):e50 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    29. Ellimoottil C, Leichtle SW, Wright CJ, Fakhro A, Arrington AK, Chirichella TJ, et al. Online physician reviews: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Bull Am Coll Surg 2013 Sep;98(9):34-39. [Medline]
    30. Rao M, Clarke A, Sanderson C, Hammersley R. Patients' own assessments of quality of primary care compared with objective records based measures of technical quality of care: cross sectional study. BMJ 2006 Jul 1;333(7557):19 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    31. Greaves F, Pape UJ, King D, Darzi A, Majeed A, Wachter RM, et al. Associations between Internet-based patient ratings and conventional surveys of patient experience in the English NHS: an observational study. BMJ Qual Saf 2012 Jul;21(7):600-605. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    32. Glover M, Khalilzadeh O, Choy G, Prabhakar AM, Pandharipande PV, Gazelle GS. Hospital evaluations by social media: a comparative analysis of Facebook ratings among performance outliers. J Gen Intern Med 2015 Oct;30(10):1440-1446 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    33. Schlesinger M, Grob R, Shaller D, Martino SC, Parker AM, Finucane ML, et al. Taking patients' narratives about clinicians from anecdote to science. N Engl J Med 2015 Aug 13;373(7):675-679. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    34. Geierhos M, Bäumer FS, Schulze S, Stuß V. “I grade what I get but write what I think.” Inconsistency Analysis in Patients' Reviews. 2015 Presented at: European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS); 2015; Münster, Germany. [CrossRef]
    35. Pulkkinen L. Seattle Post-Intelligencer. 2015 Nov 4. Bellevue Doctor Sues Patient who Blasted him on Yelp: Patient Denies Defamation Claim   URL: [WebCite Cache]
    36. Der Spiegel. 2017. BGH-Urteil zu Arztkritik: Bewertungsportale müssen Belege liefern   URL: http://www.netzwelt/web/bundesgerichtshof-bewertungsportale-muessen-strenger-pruefen-a-1079993.html [WebCite Cache]
    37. Maas B. CBS Denver. 2012 Sep 12. Doctor Suing Former Patient over Online Criticism   URL: [WebCite Cache]
    38. Der Spiegel. 2018 Feb 20. BGH-Urteil zu Jameda: Bewertungsportal muss Ärzte-Profil löschen - und ändert sein Geschäftsmodell   URL: http://www.netzwelt/web/jameda-aerztin-klagt-erfolgreich-auf-loeschung-aus-aerztebewertungsportal-a-1194390.html [WebCite Cache]
    39. Cylus J, Richardson E, Findley L, Longley M, O'Neil C, Steel D. United Kingdom: health system review. Health Syst Transit 2015;17(5):1-126 [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    40. Rice T, Rosenau P, Unruh LY, Barnes AJ, Saltman RB, van Ginneken E. United States of America: health system review. Health Syst Transit 2013;15(3):1-431 [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    41. Staiger DO, Auerbach DI, Buerhaus PI. Trends in the work hours of physicians in the United States. J Am Med Assoc 2010 Feb 24;303(8):747-753 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    42. Azu MC, Lilley EJ, Kolli AH. Social media, surgeons, and the internet: an era or an error? Am Surg 2012 May;78(5):555-558. [Medline]
    43. Samora JB, Lifchez SD, Blazar PE, American Society for Surgery of the Hand Ethics and Professionalism Committee. Physician-rating web sites: ethical implications. J Hand Surg Am 2016 Jan;41(1):104-10.e1. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    44. Customer Flux. 2017. FAQs   URL: [accessed 2017-03-08] [WebCite Cache]
    45. Patinamarketing. 2012 Aug 12. Have You Claimed & Optimized Your Online Physician Profile?   URL: [accessed 2017-03-08] [WebCite Cache]
    46. Reputation Defender. Physician Online Reputation Management   URL: https://www.blog/doctors/physician-online-reputation-management-online-review-management [accessed 2017-03-08] [WebCite Cache]
    47. Emmert M, Meszmer N, Sander U. Do health care providers use online patient ratings to improve the quality of care? Results from an online-based cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res 2016 Sep 19;18(9):e254 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    48. Emmert M, Adelhardt T, Sander U, Wambach V, Lindenthal J. A cross-sectional study assessing the association between online ratings and structural and quality of care measures: results from two German physician rating websites. BMC Health Serv Res 2015 Sep 24;15:414 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    49. Greaves F, Ramirez-Cano D, Millett C, Darzi A, Donaldson L. Harnessing the cloud of patient experience: using social media to detect poor quality healthcare. BMJ Qual Saf 2013 Mar;22(3):251-255. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    50. Lagu T, Greaves F. From public to social reporting of hospital quality. J Gen Intern Med 2015;30(10):11397-11399 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]

    PRW: physician-rating website

    Edited by T Kool; submitted 03.10.17; peer-reviewed by S Kleefstra, S Grabner-Kräuter, C Schaefer; comments to author 09.11.17; revised version received 06.01.18; accepted 13.03.18; published 14.06.18

    ©Fabia Rothenfluh, Peter J Schulz. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (, 14.06.2018.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.


text:
Drummergirl by Kim Flowers

Drummergirl by Kim Flowers

Drummergirl by Kim Flowers

OUT NOW! Drummergirl by Kim Flowers

Seventeen-year-old drummer Amy Parks has been in band since fifth grade, is now the percussion section leader, and belongs to a garage band called The Maniacs. After her first crush on another girl at the age of ten, she swore to keep that part of herself hidden, even from herself, and never let it out again. Her band director is rumored to be gay, but other than that, Amy knows no other gay people, and thinks the word “lesbian” can’t possibly apply to her, even though her younger sister Erin constantly calls her gay and Amy has a half-naked poster of JLo on her wall. But still, she can’t be gay, right?

Then Amy meets the new girl, fellow band member Becca.

Amy is afraid of the thoughts and feelings she experiences, and thinks if she gets a boyfriend, maybe she’ll stop being so attracted to Becca. When the first boyfriend doesn’t work out, she jumps to the next guy, but is still unsatisfied. Amy begins to go to the lesbian chat room online and befriends a mentor named WhiskeyMind, who tells her for the first time that being a lesbian is about love.

When Amy finally decides to tell Becca how she feels, she must face the choice of being true to herself and losing everything, or hiding in the closet just to keep her friends and her position in The Maniacs. Is coming out the right thing to do? Is Becca really the girl of her dreams, or is there someone else out there for her?

Download the ebook today!


text:
Unit Manager

  Afghanistan Unspecified 229
Date Posted:Apr 21, 2010
Closing Date:Apr 27, 2010
Work Type:Unspecified
Number of Vacancies:1
Functional Area:Construction
Salary Range:As per NTA salary scale policy
Years of Experience:10 Years
Contract Duration:Not specified
Extension Possibility:No
Contract Type:Short Term
Probation Period:1 month
Required Languages:

Job Summary:

The Unit Manage will oversee the implementation of Water and Sanitation Infrastructure contracting, construction, and maintenance in their assigned region. This will be achieved through the direct performance of tasks or supervision of designated staff who are assigned tasks including, but not limited to, the following:

Duties & Responsibilities:

1.Ensure the performance of SWSS staff and contractors responsible for constructing water supply, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) infrastructure in the assigned region;
2.Coordinate closely with SWSS contracting team through the Director, Water and Sanitation Infrastructure (D-WSI) to support rapid construction of WASH infrastructure that is compliant with all aspects of contracted works;
3.Ensure that construction projects identified and vetted by communities and government actors are implemented in accordance with high quality standards in a timely manner;
4.Provide timely information as directed by the D-WSI for submission to the SWSS monitoring and evaluation (M and E) staff;
5.Oversee the daily activities of Regional Construction Supervisors (RCS) and a Regional Assistant Administrator. RCSâ€™ have a more direct role in ensuring that SWSS infrastructure projects are well sited, constructed, on schedule, within budgets and to quality standards;
6.Resolve issues related to contracted construction;
7.Support hiring and training the RCSâ€™;
8.Evaluate and mentor the RCSâ€™ work with project beneficiaries, implementing partners, local authorities, and construction contractors;
9.Interact regularly with Provincial and District representatives of relevant line ministries, including at a minimum, the Ministry of Womenâ€™s Affairs, the Ministry of Public Health, and the Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development.
10.Review construction contractorâ€™s submittals for compliance with subcontract requirements;
11.Review and recommend subcontractor payment requests;
12.Maintain organized files (electronic and hard copy) containing all pertinent documentation on all infrastructure projects;
13.Report to the Deputy Director of Water and Sanitation infrastructure (DD-WSI) on project progress in time for inclusion in project monthly, quarterly and annual reports; and
14.Provide project information as requested to ensure information is broadly available and shared within the project, partners, collaborators, USAID and ARD Home Office.

Job Requirement:

EDUCATION: Advanced University degree in civil engineering or similar field.

WORK EXPERIENCE: Minimum of 7 years progressive experience in an equivalent position. Experience working in a similar position for an INGO or an international organization is preferred. Must have willingness to travel to ARD Afghanistan field offices on ARD business. Must also have the ability to work effectively in a fast-paced, stressful environment. In addition, must be flexible, willing to perform other duties and work irregular hours.
Work experienced of USAID funded project is a clear plus.

SKILLS: Working knowledge of English, both written and spoken. Able to communicate fluently effectively both verbally and in writing. Excellent interpersonal skills, including patience, diplomacy, willingness to listen and respect for colleagues. Must be capable of working both individually and as part of a team. Must also be able to create a supportive working relationship among all project teams.

LANGUAGES: Fluent knowledge of speaking and written English, Dari and Pashto.

GENERAL: Excellent analytical and organizational skills;
Willing to regularly conduct site visits to the project sites;
Strong diplomatic and interpersonal skills are desired;
Knowledge of USAID procedures is desired.
Tactfulness, enthusiasm to the job. Good human relation skills, integrity and ability to work with minimum supervision and under pressure.

Job Location:

This job is expired


WARC-Identified-Payload-Type: application/xhtml+xml

text:
Вход и регистрация Фирми | Потребители
★★★★★ Mobile Developer (iOS and/or Android) FULLY REMOTE, СИРМА СОЛЮШЪНС АД  Вижте визитка на компанията
Дистанционна работа; Пълно работно време
Запази обявата в бележника   Известие за нови обяви   Принтирай   Проблем с обявата

Open position

Mobile Developer (iOS and/
or Android) FULLY REMOTE

We are looking to hire an iOS and/or Android Developer who will work in a team of top class professionals to implement and extend mobile applications that make the world a better place!

The iOS and/or Android Developer is responsible for building, developing, and integrating mobile applications. This position requires a strong hands-on developer that will fully participate in the software development process – design, development, unit testing, and technical documentation.

Sirma Solutions teams are world class, striving to provide the highest quality and value. We have over 28 years of average hands-on coding experience, across multiple technologies, vertical markets and platforms. We value our employees and share our success through competitive pay, recognition, advancement opportunities and a great working environment.

Your Responsibilities:

  • Design and build iOS and/or Android consumer and business applications in healthcare (Diabetes:M, Medrec:M), manufacturing, marketing, banking, etc.
  • Work with the latest development technologies from Apple and/or Google
  • Integrate with server-side APIs
  • Follow department guidelines for development process, coding style, revision control
  • Apply design principles and user experience to implement high-fidelity wireframes, interaction flows
  • Troubleshoot and resolve problems

Role's requirements:

  • 4+ years experience in mobile software development
  • Understanding of data structures, algorithms, OOP principles, design patterns, etc.
  • Experience with one or more of the following programminglanguages:
  • Objective-C, Swift
  • Кotlin, Java
  • Experience with one or more SDKs:
    • Android SDK
    • iOS SDK, Storyboards, Autolayout, Cocoa
  • Experience in mobile software development for iOS and/or Android applications
  • Experience with offline storage, threading, and performance tuning
  • Understanding of Apple’s and/or Android design principles and interface guidelines
  • Passion for building great mobile applications
  • Good communication and interpersonal skills
  • Excellent spoken and written English

Why Sirma Solutions should be your choice:

Кандидатствай по тази обява
СИРМА СОЛЮШЪНС АД  Известие за нови обяви
(Фирма/Организация директно търсеща служители.)
Всички обяви на СИРМА СОЛЮШЪНС АД


text:
Hi guest ,  welcome to JOBSCDC.com  |

Danone Group Indonesia - Field Sales Trainee Danone Early Life Nutrition February 2019

Written By JobsCDC on 20.2.19 | 1:06 PM

Danone MT STAR
Danone MT STAR / dancommunity.com
Danone Group Indonesia - Danone Indonesia is a reputable foreign investment company in Indonesia, running business in a major market segments namely food, beverages and nutrition industry. Danone Indonesia engaged in 3 business pillars; water, early life nutrition, and medical nutrition. Danone Indonesia is a local subsidiary company of France multinational giant, Groupe Danone SA (Danone Group). Danone Group is recognized as one of the largest food and beverages companies in the world. According to Danone Group Annual Report 2016 as cited by JobsCDC.com, Danone Group booked total sales of €21,944 million in 2016. Danone Group owns several internationally known brands and present in over 130 markets spread on 5 continents worldwide. Danone Group has 190 production plants and approximately 100,000 employees spread in all the world.

In Indonesia, Danone Group has been active since 1998 by signing a strategic alliance with Aqua, the most popular brand for bottled water products in Indonesia which was launched in 1973. Based in Jakarta, Danone Indonesia runs its business through 5 business units/subsidiaries; PT Danone Dairy Indonesia, PT Tirta Investama (Danone Aqua), PT Sarihusada Generasi Mahardika (SGM), PT Nutricia Indonesia Sejahtera and PT Nutricia Medical Nutrition. Danone Indonesia's iconic brands such as Aqua, SGM, Nutrilon, Vit, Levite, Caaya, Mizone, and Bebelac. Currently, Danone Indonesia runs its business through 24 factories and directly employs nearly 15,000 employees throughout Indonesia.

Due to facing fast business growth and expanding of business across Indonesia, Danone Group Indonesia are currently seeking for highly qualified candidates to fill the following position

Field Sales Trainee - Danone ELN Application Form

  • Hold a bachelor degree with minimum GPA of 2.75 out of 4.00 grade scale,.
  • Have knowledge and interest in Sales.
  • Proficient in MS Excel and PowerPoint.
  • Quick learner, creative, able to multitask, good teamwork
  • Have good communication skills with proficiency in English.
  • Have good physical condition (willing to do 5KM running test).
  • Have driving licenses class A and C (SIM A and C).
  • - Willing to be placed all across Indonesia
For further information, please refer official source from Danone Indonesia on following link below. If you match the profile and are interested in this exiting career opportunity, please apply in confidence by filling online application form at  https://bit.ly/danoneFIST. Only qualified candidates that meet with the above requirements would be processed in this recruitment. (JobsCDC.com / Source)

Notes :
JobsCDC.com now available on android device. Download now on Google Play here. Please be aware of recruitment fraud. The entire stage of this selection process is free of charge. Danone Group Indonesia - Field Sales Trainee Danone Early Life Nutrition February 2019 will never ask for fees or upfront payments for any purposes during the recruitment process such as transportation and accommodation.

Related Jobs :

Share this article on :
Business Blogs My Zimbio Business Top Blogs


text:
Medical Secretary

Job reference: 000095

Location: Leeds

Closing date: 18/10/2020

Salary: Up to £21,800

Employment type: Permanent

Division: One Primary Care

Hours per week: 40

OneMedicalGroup is a national award-winning health and wellbeing company, working within the NHS.

Through five complementary divisions, OneMedicalGroup supports and delivers high quality NHS services across primary, urgent and community care settings.

As Medical Secretary, the post holder will provide comprehensive secretarial, typing and administrative support to the service, including typing of referral letters (including urgent referrals and those dictated by GPs), dealing with patient enquiries and other service providers in relations to referrals, use of dictation software, maintenance of files, dealing with telephone calls, and general office procedures.

The post holder will be required to summarise and code relevant information from patient’s clinical records into the Practice clinical system, working strictly in accordance with the practice’s notes summarising protocol.

Practice based post holders may occasionally be required to cover reception duties, as and when required, to cover holidays, sickness and busy periods. The Medical Secretary will project a positive and friendly image to patients and other visitors, either in person or via the telephone.

The closing date for this job has now passed.