I must chime in on this topic. It's not just the students...
This is my 10th year of teaching internet research full time to lawyers
and they have NO idea of what Boolean and proximity connectors are used
for.
We start each 6 hour CLE seminar with those concepts and the lawyers who
think they know how to use the Internet (that is "Googling" to most of
them) are simply amazed (and quite grateful to learn these basic
concepts).
As you can tell, I am going through my lawlib in-box today!
--Best Regards,
Carole
Carole Levitt J.D., M.L.S., President, Internet For Lawyers / clevitt@netforlawyers.com / http://www.linkedin.com/in/clevitt1 / www.netforlawyers.com /
7820 Enchanted Hills Blvd., Ste A-215, Rio Rancho, NM, 87144 / phone: 310/559-2247
**LOOK FOR OUR NEW BOOK COMING THIS SUMMER FIND INFO LIKE A PRO: INVESTIGATIVE RESEARCH ON THE INTERNET (ABA LPM)**
SEMINAR SPEAKER: http://www.livecleseminars.com; AUTHOR: The Lawyer's Guide to Fact Finding on the Internet, ABA 2006 (http://www.internetfactfinder.com; AUTHOR: The Cybersleuth's Guide to the Internet, 2008 (http://www.netforlawyers.com/prod01.htm);CO-CHAIR: Acquisitions Committee, ABA LPM Publications Advisory Board and Executive Council Member; PAST CHAIR: California State Bar LPMT Section(http://www.calbar.ca.gov/lpmt)
-----Original Message----- From: owner-law-lib@ucdavis.edu [mailto:owner-law-lib@ucdavis.edu] On Behalf Of Storck, Mariann (USACO) Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 9:37 AM To: law-lib@ucdavis.edu Subject: [LAW-LIB:59303] RE: In search of bad online searches
Of course, the main problem with the search is, if entered as Kent described it, it or'd all the phrases. Of course each addition is going to keep increasing the results. It's as Kent said. The same technique decreases the number of hits on Google.
Students today are coming to us with the Google search strategy in hand. The idea of using an or, and, pre or +, w/ etc. is foreign to them.
What I had never thought about until I saw Kent's message is that running the same search in Google versus Westlaw is that the consequences are exactly opposite each other. If we take this one step further, think about the results you get if you use the same search in LexisNexis. I would guess no results since what is the likelihood of this phrase? >"power of attorney" "conservator" New York.
All opinions expressed herein are personal in nature and in no way represent the opinion or policy of my agency. Mariann Storck Legal Information Specialist/Library Manager U.S. Attorneys Office 1225 17th St, Ste 700 Denver, CO 80202 mariann.storck@usdoj.gov 303-4554-0225 (FAX) 303-454-0403
-----Original Message----- From: owner-law-lib@ucdavis.edu [mailto:owner-law-lib@ucdavis.edu] On Behalf Of Matt Morrison Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 8:00 AM To: Law Lib Subject: [LAW-LIB:59301] RE: In search of bad online searches
I concur with Jeff's comments. It is not enough to simply think about query construction. I bang into my student's heads the concepts of database content and selection until they're sick of me. And, as Jeff notes, that database selection is part of the jurisdiction/controlling authority decision that is fundamental to doing competent legal research.
I am wondering what database(s) Kent's student was working in. I just replicated the 2 searches in the ALLCASES database and adding "new york"
narrowed the results significantly, which is what I expected.
-matt m.
At 06:01 PM 6/18/2009, Cohan, Jeffrey wrote: >Kent > >I work in the law firm world. My comments are based on experiences in >several AM law firms. > >I take the time to comment because the situation you describe is >emblematic of the frustration we all feel when working with summer and >incoming associates in the library. > >It is not a personal comment directed toward you or your colleagues. > >The problem is that that your student was using a keyword approach for a >legal concept. The fact that she added the keyword NY to the search >probably means she was in the wrong database and she probably hadn't >though much about jurisdiction before she started either. At least she
>could have used the segment for NY. > >Law students are coming to us without a good handle on generalized >sources in which to begin research nor an overall sense of jurisdiction
>and controlling authorities. > >Jeff Cohan > >my opinion and not that of my employer > > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-law-lib@ucdavis.edu [mailto:owner-law-lib@ucdavis.edu] On >Behalf Of Kent Olson >Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 5:31 PM >To: AALL Academic Law Libraries SIS; law-lib@ucdavis.edu >Subject: [LAW-LIB:59297] In search of bad online searches > >Yesterday I was reviewing a law student's Westlaw research. She was >looking for cases and articles about conservators' power of attorney in
>New York. When her initial search: "power of attorney" "conservator" >turned up a few hundred thousand documents, she modified it: >"power of attorney" "conservator" "new york" >and instead got almost three million documents. > >This particular instance is an example of the Googlization of search --
>adding more words narrows a Google search but does the opposite in >Westlaw. It's probably a familiar problem for many of us. But it got me
>thinking about using really unsuccessful searches as a teaching tool. We > >show our students how to construct good Lexis and Westlaw searches, but
>it could also be a good classroom exercise or assignment to give them a
>series of bad searches and ask "What's wrong with these searches? What >would you do to fix them?" > >Legal writing instructors sometimes hand out lists of error-riddled >citations for students to correct, but I don't recall seeing anything >similar with bad online searches. And so I'm soliciting your help. If >you have a record of any memorable searches, please send them my way. >I'll compile a "Kids Write the Darndest Searches" list (without >identifying contributors, unless you ask for attribution) and share the
>results with the group. > >thank! appreciat! /s "very much" >- Kent > >Kent Olson >University of Virginia Law Library >kolson@virginia.edu > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- >This email message and any attachments are intended for the use of the >addressee(s) indicated above. Information that is privileged or >otherwise confidential may be contained therein. If you are not the >intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, >review or use of this message, documents or information contained >therein is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in >error, please immediately delete it and notify us by telephone at (212)
>218-2100. Thank you.
Matt Morrison Research Attorney and Lecturer in Law Cornell University Law Library 355 Myron Taylor Hall Ithaca NY 14853-4901 607-255-2487 607-255-1357 (fax) mmm72@cornell.edu
__________ NOD32 1.1164 (20050708) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 22 2009 - 12:58:19 PDT