Surely it would be useful if the SSE worked either entirely like Dialog or
entirely like Google or entirely like PubMed as these are the search engines
with which most of our users would be familiar? We can't expect people to
remember yet more sets of rules on how to search. What our users want is
something basic, quick, efficient and instinctive or with which they are
familiar.
Tricia Rey
Library Services Manager
Queen Victoria Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Holtye Road
East Grinstead
West Sussex
RH19 3DZ
-----Original Message-----
From: Fleet Geoff (BUCKINGHAMSHIRE SHARED SERVICES)
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 27 September 2005 09:57
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: NeLH Search problems
>Isn't this type of "erratic" searching the reason why we now
have NLH single search environment?
Well, maybe, but you have to use quotes in the SSE as well,
or you will get the same erratic behaviour.
Geoff
---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:03:29 +0100
>From: Gordon Smith <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: [LIS-MEDICAL] NeLH Search problems
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>I thought it was more usual to be able to search by phrase
without using quotes.Then the case for quotes (which I still
manage to forget!) is when you need to get round defaults,
e.g. "accident and emergency" because of Boolean AND, and "1"
and other low numbers in the volume field because of the
default to search statement numbers.
>
>The insistence on quotes looks rather like re-inventing the
square wheel.
>
>Gordon (EP).
>
>
>Gordon Smith
>The Sally Howell Library
>Epsom General Hospital
>Dorking Road
>Epsom, Surrey, KT18 7EG
>Tel. 01372-735688, Fax 01372-735687
>NULJ=HOWE, HLN=EP
>
><<Cela est bien dit>> rEpondit Candide
><<mais il faut cultiver notre jardin>>. - Voltaire.
>
>>>> Derick Yates <[log in to unmask]> 26/09/2005
16:23:13 >>>
>Isn't this type of "erratic" searching the reason why we now
have NLH single search environment?
>
>Derick Yates
>Training & Systems Librarian
>BHSN Library Management System Administrator
>Trust Library and Information Service
>Birmingham Women's Health Care NHS Trust
>Metchley Park Lane
>Edgbaston
>BIRMINGHAM
>B15 2TG
>Tel: 0121 472 1377 extension 8746
>Direct Dial Tel: 0121 627 5846
>Fax: 0121 623 6922
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: UK medical/ health care library community /
information workers [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Fleet Geoff (BUCKINGHAMSHIRE SHARED SERVICES)
>Sent: 26 September 2005 16:17
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [LIS-MEDICAL] NeLH Search problems
>
>Janet et al,
>
>I think Janet has solved the problem of why it's doing
this.
>It's still a problem, I think, because it still *appears* to
>be erratic, even if there is a logical explanation. And I
>can't imagine people (well, me anyway) remembering to do
this
>when 9 times out of 10 the logic works OK without having to
>use "".
>
>I tried this with my examples:
>- pregnan* and (urinary tract infection or uti) gave 1389
>results.
>- pregnan* and ("urinary tract infection" or uti) gives 8
>results.
>
>- (dvt or deep vein thrombosis or venous thromboembolism)
and
>(hormone replacement therapy or hrt) gave 322 results.
>- (dvt or deep vein thrombosis or venous thromboembolism)
and
>("hormone replacement therapy" or hrt) gives 15 results.
>
>Geoff
>
>
>---- Original message ----
>>Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:56:59 +0100
>>From: "Reynolds Janet (RWG) West Hertfordshire
>TR" <[log in to unmask]>
>>Subject: RE: [LIS-MEDICAL] NeLH Search problems
>>To: "'Fleet Geoff (BUCKINGHAMSHIRE SHARED SERVICES)'"
><[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>I quite agree that it's wrong, but do you think it's
>something to do with
>>needing "" on phrases? I know that logically that should
>apply which ever
>>way round you have put the components of the OR part, but
it
>might be
>>something worth experimenting with.
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Fleet Geoff (BUCKINGHAMSHIRE SHARED SERVICES)
>>[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>Sent: 26 September 2005 15:47
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: [LIS-MEDICAL] NeLH Search problems
>>
>>
>>NeLH Search seems to be behaving erratically.
>>
>>First of all, a couple of general points that are not
>covered
>>by the search tips:
>>
>>- You can now use the asterisk for truncation instead of
>>percent. This makes NeLH Search more standard (thank
>>goodness). I have not seen this announced anywhere.
>>- The search tips give the impression that using a phrase
>>does a phrase search (e.g. bed sore) whereas it does an AND
>>search. You need to use "bed sore" to search for a phrase.
>>
>>Now to the erratic things:
>>
>>Searching for (urinary tract infection or uti) and pregnan*
>>gives 12 results, which I assume is correct. Also:
pregnan*
>>and (uti or urinary tract infection) gives 12 results.
>>However: pregnan* and (urinary tract infection or uti)
gives
>>1389 results. This makes no sense.
>>
>>Similarly, searching for (dvt or deep vein thrombosis or
>>venous thromboembolism) and (hrt or hormone replacement
>>therapy) gives 15 results, which seems about right.
>However,
>>the same search: (dvt or deep vein thrombosis or venous
>>thromboembolism) and (hormone replacement therapy or hrt)
>>gives 322 results.
>>
>>There is something fundamentally wrong here. I suspect
>there
>>has been a problem for a while; my trainees have sometimes
>>got strange results and I have just put it down to NeLH
>>having a wobble.
>>
>>Can anyone explain this? Even better, please correct it!
>>
>>Geoff
>>
>Geoff Fleet
>Outreach Librarian
>Bucks Shared Services, Verney House, Gatehouse Road,
Aylesbury, HP19 8ET
>Tel: 01296 310106
>[log in to unmask]
>
>*************************************************************
**************
>This e-mail is confidential and privileged. If you are not
the intended
>recipient please accept our apologies; please do not
disclose, copy or
>distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in
reliance on its
>contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. Please
>inform us that this message has gone astray before deleting
it. Thank you
>for your co-operation.
>*************************************************************
**************
>
>DISCLAIMER:
>This e-mail and any attachments hereto contains proprietary
information, some or all of which may be confidential or
legally privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the
intended recipient(s) only. If an addressing or transmission
error has misdirected this e-mail and you are not the
intended recipient(s), please notify the author by replying
to this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient you
must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print, or rely on
this e-mail or any attachments, as this may be unlawful.
***************************************************************************
This e-mail is confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please accept our apologies; please do not disclose, copy or
distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in reliance on its
contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please
inform us that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank you
for your co-operation.
***************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************************************
INFORMATION NOTICE
Please check for viruses before accessing this email and any attachments.
This email and any attachments may contain confidential information and is intended only to be seen and used by the named addressee(s). However, even if confidential the information contained within it may be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (2000), unless it is legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not a named addressee, any use, disclosure, copying, alteration or forwarding of this email and any attachments is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender immediately by email or by telephoning 01342 414411 and permanently delete this email and any attachments from your system.
The views expressed within this email and any attachments are those of the writer and are not necessar ily the views or policie s of Queen Victoria Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. Except as required by law, the Trust shall not be responsible for any damage, loss or liability of any kind suffered in connection with this email and any attachments, or which may result from reliance on the contents of this email and any attachments.
Queen Victoria Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Website: www.qvh.nhs.uk
E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
|
