We were pleased to see that Crown et al (Reference Crown, Lee and Ramsay2000) are considering bringing us into the 21st century with their suggestion regarding the review of websites. We feel that the proliferation of unreviewed information is a potential source of patient distress and general confusion. One way forward would be for authorities (e.g. a national medical association) to review sites and give ‘seals of approval’. There are several rating scales for websites, all with varying quality criteria and little testing for reliability and validity (Reference Jadad and GagliardiJadad & Gagliardi, 1998). There are also concerns about possible litigation if a reviewing authority gives a bad review, for example, and the site loses traffic as a result (Reference TerryTerry, 2000). Although “Rating the quality of medical websites may be impossible” (Reference DelamotheDelamothe, 2000), we think it is useful to have some framework within which individuals can think about websites and compare their value for their own particular information needs.

We have been developing a standardised format to assess websites, looking at two main areas in a more qualitative way. First, ease of operation and layout, scored on a visual analogue scale. Second, an assessment of content under such headings as quality issues, provenance, and frequency of updates. The general public and the media should have some guidance as to which websites should be taken seriously and which should be avoided at all costs. When our project is complete we will seek publication conventionally and on our own website (www.ask-a-psychiatrist.co.uk).

Few people have access to psychiatric textbooks and libraries, but access to the web is likely to become almost universal in the developed world over the next few years. We should take advantage of this opportunity to promote the understanding of mental health issues by encouraging people to access reliable sources of information.