→Is this bad?: ::And I have removed it since it asked for a medical opinion, a thing which wikipedia does not give. Per this article, floaters can be an indication of bad things going on;
:I have copied to Wikipedia:Reference desk. [[User:Dieter Simon|Dieter Simon]] ([[User talk:Dieter Simon|talk]]) 01:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
:I have copied to Wikipedia:Reference desk. [[User:Dieter Simon|Dieter Simon]] ([[User talk:Dieter Simon|talk]]) 01:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
::And I have removed it since it asked for a medical opinion, a thing which wikipedia does not give. Per this article, floaters can be an indication of bad things going on; it is not for anyone on this site to reassure you that everything is okay. --[[User:Tagishsimon|Tagishsimon]] [[User_talk:Tagishsimon|(talk)]] 01:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
::And I have removed it since it asked for a medical opinion, a thing which wikipedia does not give. Per this article, floaters can be an indication of bad things going on; it is not for anyone on this site to reassure you that everything is okay. --[[User:Tagishsimon|Tagishsimon]] [[User_talk:Tagishsimon|(talk)]] 01:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
calm the F down people. all of you wikipedians are so dramatic and square headed. twist the rules in a while. nobody is going to kill you. the kid was just fucking asking if it was bad since you cats seem to know a little more than him. That's how you wrote an article, using your knowledge so just chill out and relax. --[[User:Jiffyguy|Jiffyguy]] ([[User talk:Jiffyguy|talk]]) 09:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
This article is now completed.--Dieter Simon 00:14 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)
I would like to point out the excessive use of the word "sufferers" in this article, making the floaters seem like something that directly causes suffering. Seeing as in most cases floaters are no more than a minor nuisance, I don't believe the use of the word is warranted. ThisIsRealPuma13:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You will suffer greatly from floaters if you have the larger-size ones, which will hinder your work and cause you some distress. I will support the usage of this word. Λua∫Wise(talk)18:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
most people dont have the large ones and just ignore them. suffers should not be used in places where its talking about them in general. maybe sufferers would be a correct term in the more serious conditions area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.148.124 (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, everybody has floaters, it's just those who are shortsighted who can actually perceive them. I'm about 3 diopters in both eyes, and I've seen floaters as far back as I can remember. -- Tarquin 10:36 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)
Jesus! I've always had these too, but I've always assumed that it was just dust and stuff floating on the surface of my cornea. Mintguy 10:47 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)
I have had the flashes and the "clouds" too, when in fact I did have a detached retina, back in 1979, all caused by a then generally-used anti-malaria treatment, a practice long since discarded. All ok now, though. Still got the floaters.--Dieter Simon 23:05 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)
Why don't you put your facts into the article, Tarquin? And anything else about this, you might be sharing with us that might help?
--Dieter Simon 12:43 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)
Isn´t "floater" also a business term?
Seconded, mintguy. I've always assumed they were dust or hair, since they change position or vanish when I blink. I'm shortsighted by about 3 diopters and I've been getting them as long as I can remember. Perhaps the dust is a seperate and similar phenomenon only detected by shortsighted people?
___________________________________________
Excellent work
Excellent job done, Dpb, is there any more to be said about floaters? I, who started the article, appreciate the perfection you brought to it. Dieter Simon 21:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm not myopic (shortsighted), and I've had easily perceptible floaters all my life.
Of course. Nothing I've read about floaters suggests any connection to myopia. The optical difference wouldn't matter in any case; floaters are not focussed by the lens, but are shadows cast by light coming through the lens, so the refractive error of the lens wouldn't have any effect. Dpbsmith(talk) 14:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thank You Wikipedia
I am glad & relived to have good information from Wikipedia.I always thought had terrible eye disease.
I had seen transparent warms against sky since age 6 or 7.Now at 50 plus it is all the time in my sight.
Bright light aggravates it, Dark room alleviates the problem.Till now I am not Myopic.Floaters troubles more while reading with glasses in the bright light. Date: 21June,2007 [R.Shaw]
lieing supine
Dpbsmith, the argumentation that floaters are especially visible when lying supine may be flawed. As the image on the retina is inverted, the observation that floaters appear to sink means that they physically move upwards in the eye. Hence, the argument doesn't support the claim that the supine position concentrates floaters near the fovea. Ceinturion 21:41, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No your reasoning is incorrect. Whilst the image on the retina (and thus the shadow caste by the floater) is indeed inverted, your brain automatically flips it back so up really is up and vice versa. Plus, the fovea is at the back of the eye so a supine position would indeed mean that (if free to move) the floater may "fall" nearer to it and caste a more visible shadow. 163.1.68.201, 30 May 2007
Ok, it depends on what Dpbsmith meant with his claim that "many of these specks have a tendency to sink toward the bottom of the eyeball, in whichever way the eyeball is oriented". I thought he referred to the illusion that floaters are raining down, which was briefly discussed in sci.med.vision ( http://groups.google.nl/group/sci.med.vision/browse_frm/thread/be07418ed6c11761/33d96144c191b275?lnk=gst&q=floaters+raining&rnum=1&hl=nl#33d96144c191b275 ). On second thought, you may be right that he did not refer to that illusion. On the other hand, if he didn't refer to that illusion, it is hard to believe that floaters would actually fall through the vitreous to the bottom of the eye in a few minutes. The density of these little structures is not significantly different from the density of the surrounding vitreous gel. Ceinturion20:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Translating the German remarks
The following summary added by 217.255.95.36 in German after s/he had reverted the link added by 217.162.94.87 in translation is:
"Your esoteric rubbish is unwelcome, especially so in an encyclopaedia. No doubt you thought that the link would have higher chances of survival (in an English Wikipedia?). {My bracketed completion}. Dieter Simon23:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
erm..
Aren't they the cells visible when looking at certain colors such as light blue or purple?
I always thought mine looked like cells. ---T0ny 04:19, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
No, that's a completely different phenomenon. You're referring to the visualization of the red blood cells in the capillaries, which is much more visible when viewed against a blue background. They are tiny, they move quickly, they move steadily, they usually appear as bright dots, they seem to be in focus, and with a little attention you can see that many of them follow each other tracing out the same path (the path being the blood vessels). They can become more or less visible depending on circulatory conditions. They never look like threads or big blobs.
The things which usually get the name "floaters" are big, move very slowly if at all--they float or drift. They exhibit a wide variation in appearance but often look like threads or blobs as well as small dots, and they often appear wholly or partly out of focus. They tend to stay in one general part of the field of view for minutes at a time, then drift away in an irregular way. Dpbsmith(talk)12:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Talking about temptation doesn't make sense. Also what's with shifting the gaze? People can change what portion of their visual field they are paying attention to without actually moving their eyes. Then there's the whole "brain not tuning them out" thing. To the best of my knowledge, the brain is fully capable of tuning out movement, though this varies based on the brain in question and the type of movement. Besides, if the brain really couldn't tune them out, one would think they'd cause more trouble than they do.Hackwrench17:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Laser floater treatments
The two external links "Laser Floater Treatment in Virginia" and
"Laser Floater Treatment in Florida" are nothing but advertisements for commercial sites who - although they are dressed up as giving information about the actual laser treatments offered - nevertheless are presenting a POV attitude which does not belong into an encyclopedia. I very much recommend removing these links for that reason. Dieter Simon00:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transparent floaters - evidence
I see my contribution on transparent floaters that defocus a section of image without darkening it has been marked as needing citation.
I cannot currently cite any reference for this, having looked in vain so far, but I can say from personal experience, and that of my mother who spent years being misunderstood or ignored by opthalmologist, that they exist and that the evidence points to no other explanation. I have seen references to this problem on internet groups, by people similarly annoyed that their opthalmologist, unable to see any floaters, deny that they have them, while they complain of whole columns of text defocussing with no other reason identified. Not sure these constitute authoritative citations though.
I ask therefore that this section be left, for others to consider and possibly investigate. It seems to me that some things justify being reported as self-evident even if they have not been authoritively written up. Reason and personal experience leads to the obvious conclusion that transparent floaters are the cause of the problem, unless of course anyone has a better explanation to suggest here? The fact that the gelatinous body is known to break up in older people, and that such breakup is not going to create dried blood or other dark material, but rather clumps of potentially differing refractive index, like mini floating lenses, suggests that such a problem might be expected to exist, and that such floaters might well be invisible to the opthalmologist. --Lindosland21:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am removing the following section, as it reflects one person's experience of vitreous syneresis and many assertions are speculative:
"There is, however, another common form of floater, often denied by opthalmologists, perhaps because they are too young to have experienced it first-hand. This seems to be the result of relatively transparent blobs of gelatinous body breaking free and drifting in the liquid part of the vitreous humour. Quite unlike the black spots and threads commonly observed by younger people, their main effect can be to suddenly defocus the image, and if they drift close to the lens they can badly defocus a whole column of print, or the view across a road, without apparently darkening it (perhaps because of differing refractive indices). They are easily distinguished from other causes of blurring by the fact that flicking the eyes to one side and back temporarily restores normal vision. It can be annoying for people with such floaters to be told that 'floaters are not a problem', though once understood they are easier to live with.[citation needed]"
kinda like a cloud i was up way up in the sky
and i was feeling some feelings you wouldn't believe
sometimes i don't believe them myself
and i decided i was never coming down
just then a tiny little dot caught my eye
it was just about too small to see
but i watched it way too long
it was pulling me down
What do people think? Is this evocative enough of floaters that it should be included in the Quotations section? I personally don't have strong feelings either way. Dpbsmith(talk)19:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. There isn't any evidence that the dot is a floater rather than some external feature or flaw the speaker is describing, especially given the fantastic context. --Natebw12:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What? Just because he's famous Trent Reznor doesnt suffer from floaters? I call it a possibility, especially because they can cause depression, which is a common element in NIN writing.
I was surprised to find that wikipedia doesn't have an entry for "flashers" or "flasher" of the opthalmic meaning.
I'd suggest that this article be retitled to something like "floaters and flashers." Or, create some other pointer for "flasher[s]".
I don't know if the term "flasher" is common outside the US.
--peter
Information
Information on possible floater therapies and cures is very needed in this article. A lot of good information is circulating at the curezone.com discussion board. Many say they have cured their floater problems entirely. Please understand this is likely not simply pseudo-science. But yes, it seems some things work for some people, don't for others. All of this are things that should be explored in this respected article. Thank you. Anonymous, 4 April 2006
mastrubation
my friend tells me too much masturbation causes floaters. googling masturbation+floaters shows up some interesting results
It doesn't. Your friend is either misinformed or messing with your head. This is probably a modern version of the old urban legend that it causes blindness. And, by the way, it doesn't cause hair to grow in the palm of the hand, either. Dpbsmith(talk)13:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Masturbation may causes floaters indirectly. As you masturbate, you get small amount of semen on your hands. When you rub your eyes later, that semen transfers to the eye. The 'floaters' are indeed semen floating about. Rarely they'd still be alive. Whether it causes blindness (a massive build up) is not known. But an account of it happening may have lent itself to the myth that masturbation may cause blindness.
-G
Where do you get this from? Hope you don't even think about putting this into the main article without sourcing it. If you can't cite sources it will be reverted instantly. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's common, but if so it's wrong, as the Wikipedia Naming convention is always to use the most common name, not the most correct, most technical, most professional, etc. As it says, "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." Dpbsmith(talk)23:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those guidelines should not be taken too literally. Following the rules, we might change "VHS" to "videotape" as well, because the latter is used more often. Wikipedia is for supplying correct information, so why would we prefer the scientifically unapproved name 'floater' over the correct name 'myodesopsia'? MrTroy14:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the naming conventions, which I just explained. And because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, i.e. is for a general audience. Feel free to strain the interpretation as much as you like, but don't call me a literalist. The spirit of the naming convention is "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." How would naming it "myodesopsia" serve the purpose of optimizing the name "for a general audience over specialists?" Dpbsmith(talk)14:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image
Floaters look much more transparent to me, more like this:
Well Acdx, I think that's a lot better impression of how floaters look. Whoever made that other image apparently didn't know how to create transparency. I've taken the liberty and put your image in the article. MrTroy19:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can simulate floaters. Just get a large, white, flat bottomed bowl (a casserole dish or something), and fill it with water. Shake some lint from the dryer on the top of the water (you can even just give it a dusting by beating the lint like a carpet), add a hair or two for good measure, and presto. The shadows on the bottom of the bowl look almost exactly like floaters (and I think its the same principle, in effect). Then take a picture of it.
I tried it but I don't know how to work my camera well enough at the moment (couldn't figure out the manual focus), and then it ran out of batteries :P. I'll try again another time, but if someone beats me to it, be my guest. 24.57.157.8101:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Centrum
it seems that Centrum will casue eye floaters, i am not familar with wiki so admin please chech this link.
That would fall under 'own research' which can't be included in articles under Wikipedia policy. That is, unless you find a renowned scientific magazine to publish the story. MrTroy08:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we can say a line or two that “Allegations that the use of multivitamins can cause, or at least catalyses, the appearance of floaters have surfaced on the web.” I will not add this, untill other wiki users support this idea. Λua∫Wise(talk)12:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Front Page?
I was wondering how I could nominate this article for the front page. This article helped me because I got one of these and didn’t know what it was I thought I had scratched my eye or something. I've talked to people only after I read this article to find out that a lot of other people have them. This article also saved me a trip to the school councilor after I misread the HPPD article and thought that floaters were a hallucination or something from the one time I did ecstasy over a year ago. So I think this should be front page article so it can save ignorant people like me from embarrassing situations and it’s a really well structured article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lesty (talk • contribs) 20:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Your floaters may have originated from a scratch on your eye. I've had some on my left eye ever since I had it sliced open by a cat. Ever since then, there have been floaters in my left eye which I had never seen before and, fortunantly, were my only souvenir from the incident. Flag-Waving American Patriot00:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this article states: "Further work is necessary to identify newer and safer ways to remove floaters, such as intra-vitreal injection of hyaluronidase analogues and use of transconjunctival sutureless 25-guage vitrectomy systems with high cut-rates". Are these procedures worth mentioning?
I ,myself, had the same question. i have come across many forums and websites that went into great lengths to talk about some "medical" advances and new treatments. However, i did not include them in this article to keep it as scientific and reliable as possible. Λua∫Wise(talk)18:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GA nomination
I'm not "officially" reviewing this article, but I came across it on the GA nominations page. I noticed there was already one "fact" tag and I added a few more. Statements about specific conditions, statistics, numbers, dates, etc, really need citations, as well as any statements that are not common sense or well known. I'm not trying to sound preachy, but I'm rather fond of this article as it was one of the first things I searched for when I discovered Wikipedia years ago. I would fix it myself but I have my own pet projects to take care of... in this current condition, in my humble opinion, this isn't going to pass. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I somewhat agree with you. The article might not satisfy all GA criteria, but now I have put it there, I find it very difficult to withdraw its nomination. The feedback from a reviewer will be most helpful in determining what the article needs (perhaps listing for a peer review would've been better). Like yourself, this was one of the first articles I searched for on WP, I would like to have it on the mainpage as an FA, but it needs a lot of working to reach that status. Its GAN is a first step though. I am Ergo sum sure it will make it there. :)
Hi there, as a fellow sufferer this is a topic that is constantly in my gaze! I fixed up the lead a bit but there are a let of other things that could be improved. I'll add notes as I go through.
Lead
Needs to cover the topic more broadly - prevalence and treatment are missing.
Description
Saying "one's" is not the best way of writing about the topic, you need to describe it from an outsider's viewpoint. ie instead of "However, attempting to shift one's gaze toward them can be difficult since floaters follow the motion of the eye, remaining to the side of the direction of gaze." it would be bettler style to say "However, since floaters follow the motion of the eye and tend to remain to the side of the direction of gaze, they can be difficult to observe."
Yes, you need to cite the source for statistics and quotations - a general rule is that where a reader might want to know more or might doubt a statement you need a citation. If you're unsure add one - its better to over-cite than under-cite.
I don't like "surprise links" such as "stimulate the retina mechanically" linking to phosphene. Readers tend to find these disconcerting and confusing. Its a bit clearer to day "stimulate the retina mechanically, producing an effect called a phosphene"
Format external links as in-line citations.
"one can look at the effect of blinking" - personal tone again
As someone who has had multiple eye problems, including at least 5 surgeries (at least 6 if laser treatment is included), I have some personal experience with different types of floaters.
I agree with the people who disagree with the "sink toward the bottom" statement; I'd like to see an official reference for this. I know the brain flips the image, but I don't see that as being relevant. What I do see as being relevant is that external objects which appear to be below are focused by the lens at the top of the retina, and vice versa. Therefore, since floaters are on the other side of the lens, floaters near the top would be interfering with external objects from below, and vice versa. One way or another, this is not explained adequately.
After I had my last retinal detachment repair, my doctor seemed to disbelieve that I could easily see what I could only conclude were blood vessels.
I think that there should be a clear recommendation that people with NEW floaters get looked at, perhaps its' own section. New floaters, especially several, indicate some kind of damage or degeneration. Vision is by far the most critical sense for sighted people. You hear of people who function impressively well without vision, but they are likely a small minority, and you never hear of rational people volunteering to lose their vision.
Speaking of blurs, I've had that also, but the ones that I have nowadays are almost certainly merely thickened mucus on the surface of the eyeball, which people can readily remove themselves. I see that the article seems to use "tear film" for this, which needs to be explained.
The retinal detachment statement should be clarified; retinal detachment IS blindness, of the part of the eye where the detachment occurred, and it can worsen. And, I can tell you from experience that a regular optometrist who mostly deals with lens prescriptions may need some convincing to look at the retina, which requires a special lens and a bright light. If you have a significant change, don't accept "I don't see anything wrong".
Some of my post-surgical floaters tend to sink fairly rapidly; I don't recall that happening with pre-surgical floaters. Note that I've had vitrectomies, and I've also had silicone injected into my eyes as part of non-standard retinal detachment repairs; I'm certain that some of the floaters that I see are leftover silicone bubbles.
I think the red blood cell visualization should be should be more clearly mentioned or linked in the article. I've seen that since my last operation, and was wondering what it was.
Scott McNay (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place to discuss your eye condition. If it makes you say "HELP!" you'd better see an ophthalmologist. Otherwise try sci.med.vision. Ceinturion (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are not in a position to give a medical advice, you should see a doctor immediately. In the worst case, it could be retinal detachment and could potentially lead to blindness, refer to a doctor as fast as possible.
See an eye doctor. What you describe as "black light" could be almost anything, but as noted above it could be retinal detachment. What I want to add to what's been said above is that retinal detachment needs to be treated immediately, meaning within hours. See an eye doctor, any eye doctor will do. Yes, an ophthalmologist would be most appropriate but do not wait, do it today. When you call for your appointment be sure you talk to someone about your symptoms. If they can't give you an appointment right away, find a doctor who can.Dpbsmith(talk)22:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You must see a doctor straight away! Many years ago (1979) I started seeing a darkish-grey shape on the left side with sudden flashings in that side of my left eye. (It started when I was sneezing suddenly when I was bending down working in the garden). I got worried and went to my GP (general practitioner (British))that very evening, who immediately realised that it might be a retinal tear. Unfortunately, he couldn't get the hospital to give me a thorough check until a few days later, the NHS being what it was in those days. By that time the tear had developed into a full-blown detached retina. To their credit they immediately had me in for an operation, consisting of a cryotherapy, an ops by which they "froze" the retina back on to the back of my eye, which was a great success for those days. I have never "looked back" since then and my left eye has been perfectly alright ever since. I should also say that I have been short-sighted since childhood. However, be that it may, have it checked out as soon as poss., honestly time is running out. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all, but what actually made me ask here is that (some) doctors in Egypt are Idiots!!
FIRST OFF
VERY INTERESTING ARTICLE
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ANSWERING ALL MY QUESTIONS
PLEASE CONTINUE TO IF YOU WISH TO TRULY BE WHAT WIKIPEDIA WAS TRULY MEANT TO BE AND TRULY 'BE BOLD' AND ADD MORE AND PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE
TRULY
MY QUESTION IS
I KNOW IT SAYS THEY SEEM TO BE HARMLESS UNLESS ITS SEVERE SOMEHOW AND YOU NOTICE IT CONSTANTLY
WHICH I DONT I PURSUED THIS INFORMATION THAT LEAD TO THIS ARTICLE WHEN GOING OUTSIDE AND LOOKING AT THE SKY
AND THOUGHT IVE BEEN IN DOORS FOR TOO LONG OR SOMETHING WAS WRONG WITH ME
ALL SO
I KNOW IT SAYS YOU CAN HAVE THIS WHEN YOURE LITTLE BUT DO YOU?
IT SAYS YOU GET DEPOSITS OVERTIME SOMEHOW SO DOES THAT MEAN IT GETS WORSE AS IT GETS OLDER?
I ALL SO HEARD SOMEWHERE THAT THEY GO AWAY AFTER 8 MONTHS BUT THEY COME BACK
SO DOES THE PROTEIN LEAVE SOMEHOW AND COME BACK?
AND IT SAYS PROTEIN DEPOSITS COME INTO THE EYE ANDOTHER
BUT HOW?
IS IT A MISTAKE?
I WISH IT WAS MORE SPECIFIC
BECAUSE MY BRAIN DOESNT STOP PERUSING QUESTIONS UNTIL THEYRE ANSWERED
BECAUSE IM CRAZY!
THANK YOU
VERY MUCH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.17.177 (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried the science section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps.
Note:they will not give medical advice, but merely answer the questions.
I see you there, lurking on the periphery of my vision.
But when I try to look at you,
you scurry away.
Are you shy, squiggly line?
Why only when I ignore you, do you return to the center of my eye?
Oh squiggly line!
It's alright;
Somebody added a section about this sitcom and the 'squiggle line' quote to the main article, without indicating if it was a particularly memorable quote from that sitcom. If it is not a memorable quote, I don't see why it is valuable for the floaters article. Ceinturion (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Often causing feelings of depression and despair..."
Hi, Oculous, your added line in the first sentence of the article "...often causing feelings of depression and despair...". Can you tell us which one of the cited sources quotes this? It is a bit strange, I have had floaters since I was a child, can't however say that I have ever had feelings of "depression and despair" because of it. You tend to get used to it, or don't even notice it any more after a while. After all, every complaint, condition or illness is likely to produce feelings of this kind. Does it actually need saying? Dieter Simon (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to say the same thing. All my friends have them, and they actually make us laugh from time to time. There's nothing "often causing feelings of depression and despair" about them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.3.134.182 (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I was the only one with this! I always thought it was dust ontop of my eye. I only notice them if I try to look at them, other then that, I rarely notice. Colinstu (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my people have them but they don't know what they are. An editor has previously suggested we work on this article and get it on the main page, surely many people would benefit. How about you help us in doing that?
Hmm..I don't think they do; instead, people get used to them to the point where they don't notice them anymore, but I don't have a source to back me up here and would love to see other opinions on this particular question.
Well, I am 78 now, have had them since I was a child, and still have them, have totally got used to them to the extent that I only notice them when reading or looking at the screen but certainly not to the extent that it depresses me as an above section claims. I am saying this in the talk pages, can't therefore say I can substantiate by sources in the actual article, but then I don't have to do I in a talk page?. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous user 99.239.203.7, I undid your edit for the following reason. You added a link to a commercial site that is trying to sell a book. Please avoid such links in the wikipedia as per WP:LINKSPAM. Ceinturion (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Artist's impression
Disputed image
Anonymous user 24.34.208.193, I undid your edit for the following reason. You removed a useful image, the artist's impression. Please compare artist's impressions in other sources mentioned in the external links, [1][2][3] (try the simulator!), and see that they agree.
DpbsmithFor what it's worth, I created an earlier image, the first image included in the article, shown below. I did it that way, not because I "didn't know how to create transparency," but because this is how my own floaters look to me. The one in the lower left looks, or looked, just that dark and opaque and in-focus. Now, I made that artwork within about a year of having had a posterior vitreous detachment, when there was rather more crud than average floating around there. They've gotten less visible since. And when I was younger, I did have some of the delicate, pale transparent ones resembling the newer image, although I always had little tiny dots and thin threads.
I'm not arguing about the later image, I'm not saying mine's better. I rather like my own, and I quite like the new one. I'm just saying there's obviously individual variation, and people should probably stop staying "the image is wrong, because floaters don't look like that." If the anon wanted to say how the floaters he sees compare to the picture(s), that might be interesting to know. Dpbsmith(talk)03:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this image, it does not appear to me by looking at that picture that the artist suffers from floaters, as this is not close to anything that people have described to me. Since only the one who suffers from floaters knows actually what they look like and since then everyone is inherently different, I think that this picture is very misleading and does not add to the article, only takes away from it. 24.34.208.193 (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the reference you give ("not close to anything that people have described to me") is inadequate and unspecific. You don't say what your people described. You ignore the references mentioned in the article and on this Talk-page. May be it has to do with your statement that people would 'suffer' from floaters. That implies you are talking about very severe floaters. However, most people have less obtrusive floaters, like the ones in the image. May be an embedded video, like [4], would be a better illustration than a static image, because video shows the characteristic dancing motion, but wikipedia doesn't support embedded video's. Ceinturion (talk) 08:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear contributor 24.34.208.193: I made the "disputed image" and I can assure you that I suffer from prominent floaters. It seems you don't experience them yourself and are actually trying to make claims about what other people's entoptic phenomena look like. :-) By the way, more than one wikipedian has actually personally told me of how accurately this image corresponds to their floaters.. – Acdx (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have floaters, and I came to the talk page wondering what had happened to the picture in the article. The "disputed image" is almost exactly how I see things.--209.169.206.118 (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the original image was fine. Nobody on this talk page supported 24.34.208.193. It makes sense to restore the original image because it was accurate according to all but one in this discussion. Ceinturion (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Drug/medication side effect?
Is there any evidence that eye floaters can be caused by a side effect of a medication? And what is the relationship between floaters and visual aura (before migraine/seizure)? 71.174.28.186 (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the last line in the vitrectomy listing in the treatment session
reason : It is unrelated to that place in the article describing treatments.
requesting not to revise.
Weird claim in the first section 2nd paragraph
"They do not cause problems for most people"
"14 percent of appointments"
How come they do not cause problems to most people if they cause so much doctor appointments?
I think if we keep the latter bit we should bring and name the source of the first one since it seems they DO cause serious strain on people who are affected by many of them (from all the sources cited here)
an example of how this could be made right is:
For most floaters it is advised to attempt to get used to them since it is likely after some time
with two sources one pointing out to say a medical textbook or report with the reccomendation and the other for the survey where people supposedly report they are less bothered with the phenomena over time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.114.5.10 (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as one who has been afflicted by floaters from his early youth (I am a pensioner), I can truthfully say it is a matter of getting used to them rather than going to great lengths to have them treated. I am not saying, however, that there are never occasions when more serious problems are diagnosed when floaters manifest themselves. All I am saying is, that after a doctor's initial observation one should take his advice to learn to live with them, if that is what he/she advises. I think that is what is indicated by the items pointed out. You should always see a physician first though, and follow his advice. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User 192.114.5.10, you are mistaking. The article does not say that 14 percent of appointments is caused by floaters. Instead it says that "14 patients per month per optometrist presented with symptoms of floaters". Nothing weird about that. Ceinturion (talk) 09:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this bad?
I had floaters since I was a child, I'm 17 now, and I can't say I was ever bothered by them, rather I've been amused by it every time it appears, I try to follow them and they float away, it never gets old. So my question was if floaters are something to be worried about? Thanks--201.230.48.203 (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I have removed it since it asked for a medical opinion, a thing which wikipedia does not give. Per this article, floaters can be an indication of bad things going on; it is not for anyone on this site to reassure you that everything is okay. --Tagishsimon(talk)01:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
calm the F down people. all of you wikipedians are so dramatic and square headed. twist the rules in a while. nobody is going to kill you. the kid was just fucking asking if it was bad since you cats seem to know a little more than him. That's how you wrote an article, using your knowledge so just chill out and relax. --Jiffyguy (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
