Purpose: To assess the quality of online information available for patients via readability and reliability metrics. Methodology: The top 25 search results from two popular search engines were collated with a combination of unique search terms for each pathology. The readability metrics (Flesch Reading Ease [FRE], Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level [FKGL], Gunning Fog Index [GFI], and Simplified Measure of Gobbledygook [SMOG]) and reliability indicators (DISCERN instrument, JAMA benchmarks, Health On the Net [HON] code certification) were reviewed. Statistical analysis was through Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: 150 search results (300 total) were gathered for each pathology, with fewer (27 vs 50) eligible search results for cholangitis. Across both, the median readability scores were low and the information for cholangitis was significantly (p<0.05) less readable (FRE 20.7 vs. 44.5; FKGL 14.2 vs. 11.6, GFI 16.4 vs. 14.1, SMOG 12.7 vs. 10.8) but more reliable (DISCERN 59.0 vs. 47.5) than cholecystitis. The majority of websites (65%) did not have the HONcode certification. Conclusion: Patient information for these two acute pathologies is difficult to read but of moderate reliability. Readability of information available for cholangitis, a more complex pathology, is comparatively less. The significant difference in readability levels suggests a need for simplification to accommodate the general population's literacy capabilities. These findings are critical for healthcare providers and medical content creators in enhancing the accessibility and utility of patient education materials.