I'm still in the process of reviewing the 35 reference sources, but I have been kind of surprised at how informative and interesting the process has been. The hardest part has been finding time (usually while at the desk) to review the books and do the subject resource forms.
This week, one of the senior librarians started taking me and another new librarian on informational tours of our rather meaty reference section. Having her explain each section in a fair amount of detail has made me much more of a resource for our customers. (And it's nice to not feel so dumb, too!) I am very proud of all the resources we have to offer our customers!
Friday, April 18, 2008
Google vs. Medline . . . the battle
I compared Google searching to MedlinePlus searching and came up with some surprising results (surprising to me, at least). Ordinarily, I don't Google. I'm a Yahoo woman through and through. Google feels odd to me, although after watching Gale Zadada's "Googling to the Max" presentation, Google is looking awfully good.
My search criteria for the Google vs. Medline search included these words: weight loss middle age women. (This search is obviously not related to me in any way.)
Overall, comparing the 1st 10 results of each search engine, I'd say the Google search returned more results that were actually pertinent to my request. Most of the sites Google presented were somewhat or very useful (I assigned each site a number rating from 1 - 10). Google averaged 5.6 with highs of 9 (for the Mayo Clinic's website), to a low of 2 (for a medical journal article that was not much related to my topic). MedlinePlus's sites averaged a score of 3.15, with a high of 7 for a National Library of Medicine site, and a low of 0 for a couple of obscure articles about diseases not much related to my search request.
Both sites are valuable; I would still probably turn to Google first to help with a customer's health inquiry, but I would not rule out MedlinePlus. Medline seems to be most useful if you have some time to sit down at a computer and review the results and the many links their resulting sites provide. Google seems to provide more detailed, full-text information without a bunch of links that need to be sorted through to get at what you want.
BTW, the basic requirements for weight loss in middle aged women? Eat less, exercise more. I guess I already knew that, huh?
My search criteria for the Google vs. Medline search included these words: weight loss middle age women. (This search is obviously not related to me in any way.)
Overall, comparing the 1st 10 results of each search engine, I'd say the Google search returned more results that were actually pertinent to my request. Most of the sites Google presented were somewhat or very useful (I assigned each site a number rating from 1 - 10). Google averaged 5.6 with highs of 9 (for the Mayo Clinic's website), to a low of 2 (for a medical journal article that was not much related to my topic). MedlinePlus's sites averaged a score of 3.15, with a high of 7 for a National Library of Medicine site, and a low of 0 for a couple of obscure articles about diseases not much related to my search request.
Both sites are valuable; I would still probably turn to Google first to help with a customer's health inquiry, but I would not rule out MedlinePlus. Medline seems to be most useful if you have some time to sit down at a computer and review the results and the many links their resulting sites provide. Google seems to provide more detailed, full-text information without a bunch of links that need to be sorted through to get at what you want.
BTW, the basic requirements for weight loss in middle aged women? Eat less, exercise more. I guess I already knew that, huh?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)