Some good, general web-search tips here.

Some good, general web-search tips here.

Synonyms and searches

I just spent a quarter of an hour finding a synonym for the medical/ biological term ‘catch-up growth’. This was mostly brain-dependent and however much I tried to use online sources such as Thesaurus.com, it was no use. So maybe this posting is more about the vagaries of human memory rather than the benefits of having an encyclopaedic reference tool, the internet, at our fingertips.

I did remember the word began with ‘co-’ and came up with ‘compensatory [growth]‘ after a false start. It’s a bit pathetic, but I do feel somewhat pleased with myself. No number of examples (“if you lose your sight and develop a great sense of hearing–what is that called? Correction? Amendment?”) helped, it was just guessing what a long word beginning with ‘co’ sounded like as it rapidly flashed by a few times.

Recently, I have been conducting a surve …

Recently, I have been conducting a survey on the merits, or lack thereof, of a database platform called Ovid SP. When they heard about the survey, several people sent me a review from Information World Review. Thinking this name sounded quite authoritative, I expected the review to be thorough and unbiased. How wrong could I have been? The review is quite biased and written in a peppy, naive, “What will they think up next?” tone. For example:

“The fact that you can use all or any of these tools to search simultaneously across all subscribed to content types just adds to the pleasure, and using OvidSP truly is a pleasure.”

And

“But scroll down on the left and you discover the real joy of the OvidSP Results Manager…”

I find it hard to believe this review has not been commissioned by the folks at Wolters Kluwer, as it appears to have a definite link with the company behind Ovid. How can one say that there is nothing to criticise about the new Ovid redesign, as the review author does, when the information science community who actually uses this platform daily have plenty of concerns?

For example, the Krafty Librarian describes one concern their organisation had had with the Basic Search (NLP):

“At our library we were concerned because we noticed the NLP was forgetting to include MeSH terms as part of the related terms. “

“Will Basic Search searches be reproducible? An emphatic no. Field searching will be, but not basic searching. This is a problem for users, and librarians.”

The second quotation is from the UBC Academic search blog.

I have never had the occasion to use the Basic search, as we alway do systematic searches at my organisation (although I have tested it and found it wanting). However, Advanced search shares some of the same inconveniences. The UBC blog mentions that screen space is wasted with the Search Aid (I never use this) and the Ovid SP tip. This second ‘feature’ is terrible if you are like me and increase the size of the display font to make Ovid readable. The tip shrinks the usable width of the screen to a fraction of the computer screen.

I have experienced many other frustrations with the navigation, functionality and layout of the new Ovid interface. Davey Windey’s “gushy” review reflects on none of these. From Windey’s review, I learn two things–the importance of impartial reviewing, and the importance of the reviewer’s familiarity with how the resource is meant to be used with regards to the needs of its users.

Information World Review, if it wishes to be read by the information science community, should either commission good quality reviews or else declare the reviewers’ competing interests (like everybody else).

Right, there’s too much about Google ar …

Right, there’s too much about Google around here. No more for a while – after this one… well, I stumbled across it. It’s an entry on the health care blog about “Google Health – A view from the Inside”. It is rather partial, as it’s written by a Google insider, as one would expect from the title, but the second half of the entry has some super interesting observations on life in Google and the semi-mythical campus Googleplex. The first time he visited the place he was rather lost and recalls:

“‘How do I get to building 43?’ I remember asking on my first visit. ‘Oh, walk between the hot tub and the sushi bar, take a right after the big dinosaur, and it’s right there.’”

And yes, the food IS all free, darn it…

ResearchGate: Facebook for scientists!

ResearchGate: Facebook for scientists!

“ResearchGATE is for scientists built by scientists driven by the concept of Science 2.0″. That’s the first I’ve heard of Science 2.0, but I don’t see why not. I wonder what it means, though? Science has always been, by its nature, collaborative. Does it just mean business as usual, but rather than collaborating as usual they just now use ‘ResearchGate’? Here’s what Scientific American think… (and in an example of scientific journalism 2.0, you, the reader, can contribute to the development of the article)

Google Health: my first impressions

There are so many Google widgets, I cannot keep up, nor do I really try. I must confess that Google health first came to my knowledge simultaneously from a listserv and from the lovely UBC academic search blog here.

I posted this comment on there (and cannot be bothered to put it into different words):

It will be interesting to see what sort of effect the vast amount of consumer health information provided on Google Health will have on the people who use it. Will people self-diagnose themselves more and avoid going to the doctor, or present more frequently? Will it help reach hard to reach populations such as males between the ages of 12 and 99? The person profile part is a good idea if we can trust Google (and as many trust them with email, why not with personal medical histories?).

Having been involved in evidence-based healthcare for the past several years, I have to cast a skeptical eye over the Google health topics and wonder about things like how often they will be updated (I don’t see dates on any of the topics), why it doesn’t include references to studies when it makes a statement about the effectiveness of a given treatment, and the reliability of information from the company it uses, Adam. Okay, so Google Health is still in beta mode, so we can expect more transparency with regards to the methods used to research the topics, right? Because currently, it just says “health content for consumers that is physician-reviewed by experts in their field”. Hmm.

Are we in the midst of a second internet …

Are we in the midst of a second internet bubble? The FT reports that Web 2.0 fails to produce cash. “The shortage of revenue among social networks, blogs and other “social media” sites that put user-generated content and communications at their core has persisted despite more than four years of experimentation aimed at turning such sites into money-makers…”

The Health Care Blog has “snapped on th …

The Health Care Blog has “snapped on the latex gloves” and done a quick clinical exam of Google health and found it wanting… doing a search within Google health still ends up most of the time with the ubiquitous and hardly authoritative Wikipedia, the find a doctor function is all over the place, it’s still very commercial with adverts dotted everywhere suggesting you ought to test yourself for this or that condition, which could confuse people not web savvy, and that generally it does not really look the complete article. The conclusion was that “Anyhow, the seven minutes I have for basic clinical exams is over. It was fun giving Google Health a quick once-over. But it’s a good thing the medical record is a fake. I don’t think it’s ready for circulation yet…”

Finding work meaningless? What’s it all …

Finding work meaningless? What’s it all about? A surprisingly well written BBC Magazine article (but then the author does normally write for the FT) suggests that “We start to demand that our work has a larger meaning. This almost always ends badly, meaning is a bit like happiness – the more you go out looking for it the less you find.” No specific mention of librarians or information types, but has some thoughts about craftsmanship, managing, and redundancy…

I’m sure you know by now, but Google he …

I’m sure you know by now, but Google health is here. With it you can: Import your medical records from partnering hospitals, labs, pharmacies; View and manage you medical history; check for potential interactions between your drugs, allergies, and conditions; refill prescriptions online, ask for a second opinion, or get personalized health information based on your profile; and search for existing or new doctors by specialty or location. I had a quick look at their privacy policy, something of course which Google is arguably not so hot on (e.g.), and they promise that if you do delete your profile that “copies of data stored in Google Health may persist for up to two weeks after the data is deleted. Within that time period, it is completely removed.”

Let’s not forget MS HealthVault (beta) either – they look much of a muchness, though I admit I have not had time to explore either in any great detail…