Physicians: the problem is rarely the star rating
Board actions, malpractice write-ups, and complaint pages are what patients and AI assistants surface first. Reviews are the easy part.
Reviews are a distraction from the real exposure
Chasing a fourth star is a familiar project. It is also not usually what costs a physician a patient.
What costs a patient is a board action page, a malpractice case summary, a complaint-site page, or a local news item ranking on the first page of your name — and an AI assistant repeating it when someone asks whether they should see you.
What patients actually encounter
- A name search that returns a regulatory or legal page in the top few results.
- An AI answer that mentions a matter without noting it was resolved or dismissed.
- Aggregator profiles with wrong affiliations, wrong specialty, or a wrong address, which undermine the accurate pages.
What to measure instead of stars
- Which negative items rank for your name, and at which position, on Google and Bing.
- How each major AI assistant describes you, verbatim.
- Whether your hospital or practice bio is cited at all.
- How hard each negative item will be to suppress, given the domain and how widely it was repeated.
The work
Build the accurate, substantive version of you until it legitimately outranks the negative item: a complete practice bio with structured data, consistent affiliation and subspecialty details everywhere, published patient-education material, and clean directory records.
Then recheck monthly, because positions and AI answers both drift.
Mirror.fyi identifies each item, scores it, and prepares the plan. You execute it and submit the URLs so progress is tracked.