Jasco on Google Scholar (Redux)
I thought I'd posted this latest review of Scholar, but several of you have written in to share it with me (thanks) and as it turns out, I was thinking of something else. Peter again, puts Scholar through its' paces as no one else can, and finds several interesting deficiencies. His verdict essentially is that Scholar is not yet near the point where libraries should be dropping databases because of it.
I tend to agree, though I'm not as dismissive. I've talked to enough faculty who've said that they no longer use our databases in favor of Scholar (a practice that will likely trickle down to students) to know that they aren't really all that concerned with the bulk of the complaints raised by the detractors of Scholar. Scholar works. And it works in a way that presents very little in the way of the hoops that we make them jump through to use our library databases. As a result, I believe that (most) researchers will be very happy with tools that are "just good enough." As a librarian, I bristle at the thought. As a realist, I completely understand where they're coming from...
I tend to agree, though I'm not as dismissive. I've talked to enough faculty who've said that they no longer use our databases in favor of Scholar (a practice that will likely trickle down to students) to know that they aren't really all that concerned with the bulk of the complaints raised by the detractors of Scholar. Scholar works. And it works in a way that presents very little in the way of the hoops that we make them jump through to use our library databases. As a result, I believe that (most) researchers will be very happy with tools that are "just good enough." As a librarian, I bristle at the thought. As a realist, I completely understand where they're coming from...
8 Comments:
From where I stand Mr. Jasco has once again admirably demonstrated the shortcomings of Google Scholar and the strengths of deep web library databases.
The score is libraries 2, Google Scholar 0.
The shameful part is how GS will not reveal its sources.
By Samarpan David, at 5:14 PM
We did also a Google Scholar study. We were testing the coverage of Google Scholar for 3 different journal lists in May 2005. We quering more than 10.000 Thomsen scientific journals, 1400 Open Access Journals (DOAJ-list) and a small German social sciences journal list.
See our results (presentation) in German. http://www.ib.hu-berlin.de/~mayr/arbeiten/mayr_walter_iuk05.pdf
By Anonymous, at 9:19 AM
Hello,
This is an amazing blog post. Really Its great to be here... Very interesting. Thanks for the share....
By Astermeds.com, at 8:15 AM
Many of us Buy rs goldperformed and a Yahoo and google College student examine. We had arrived evaluating the protection of Bing Undergraduate regarding 3 unique log lists in May June 2006. We quering more than Twelve.1000 Thomsen controlled publications, 1400 Start Accessibility Magazines (DOAJ-list) Diablo 3 itemsalong with a smaller In german interpersonal sciences diary record.
By Anonymous, at 1:25 AM
Witch health practitioner is usually a incredibly allowed number of this diablo 3 people. They have many spells in addition to lots of chance to episode.
By http://www.indiablo3gold.com/, at 2:09 AM
Thank you for sharing in this article
I can learn a lot and could also be a reference
I am happy to find your website and can join to comment
Share and Klick Info Blokwalking. Hammer Of Thor
=> Jual Hammer Of Thor Di Bogor
=> Jual Hammer Of Thor Di Medan
=> Jual Hammer Of Thor Di Semarang
=> Jual Hammer Of Thor Di Bandung
=> Jual Hammer Of Thor Di Bandar Lampung
Obat Good Man | Obat pembesar penis | Vimax Asli | Vimax Extender
By Hammer Of Thor Asli, at 4:28 AM
เล่นเกม โจ๊กเกอร์123 slot online ฟรีเครดิต
https://www.slot4u.com/joker123
By RoseSlot2020, at 11:31 AM
เว็บไซด์เกมออนไลน์มหาสนุก slot online pgslot เกมสล็อตอออนไลน์
https://www.slotv9.com/pgslot
By Unknown, at 2:28 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home