Just for the record - I like Dialog!
 
I like the pdf reports with hyperlinks.
I like to choose how many citations appear on a page.
I like the choices of plurals and american/english spellings on and off.
I like the variety of proximity connectors.
I like the Help file.
Unlike others, I do like the double result when you do a Thesaurus search.
This gives me the option of combining the descriptor and keyword searches
(if few results) or limiting myself to just the descriptor searches (if many
results). However, this is not easy for infrequent users and results in very
long search results. It's not infrequent for me to have over 50 lines and it
can get quite difficult to work out what I've combined.

I get very good results using Dialog, but am having to carry out far more
searaches myself on behalf of users as they are not getting such good
results as they did with Ovid. I use Dialog several times a day and am used
to it. It's not easy for infrequent users.

Having to put hyphens between surname and initial and then follow with a ?
is not intuitive. It works, but is not what you would guess.
I would like to be able to select from the field drop down list several
fields without having to know their abbreviations and type them in. It's not
easy for people to remember the abbreviations and punctuation necessary to
search eg just the title and abstract fields.
I don't like the thesaurus. As far as I am concerned, a thesaurus is a list
of synonyms (like Roget's). Was standard thesaurus mapping thought up by
someone in IT rather than libraries and information? What users want is a
list of synonyms. They are not interested in frequency.
I would like the date range limit to limit the search step I select, not
limit the whole database and then need to be combined with AND.
I don't like the way it times me out when I'm carrying out a long search and
ticking boxes.
I don't like the fact that when I rerun a saved search, if I have selected a
different database I will get a completely different set of results -
possibly nul - and from the search page I cannot tell which databse I was
using when I saved the search. Also, to run a saved search I have to select
a database before I look at what I have saved, anyway. Why don't saved
searches automatically rerun in the database that was originally used? It is
very difficult to explain to users when they ask, "Why don't I get the same
results when I rerun a saved search as I did when I saved it?"

In Ovid
I like to be able to browse journals.
I like the speed of response.
I like the clear icons.
I like to be able to limit my search term (not the whole database)by date.
I like to get the choice of combining the keyword and subject heading
searches at the thesaurus stage.
I like the thesaurus which works in the way users expect.
However, deduplicating used to take ages and sometimes did not complete.

I can see advantages and disadvantages in both. The real problem with Dialog
is that it was not designed to be used by the infrequent searcher. It works
well when you know what to do and have the time to do it.

I'm sure I've left out a few things and may have given some advantages to
Dialog that are also available in Ovid. Someone will put me right!

Regards

Tricia Rey
Library Services Manager
Queen Victoria Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Holtye Road
East Grinstead
West Sussex
RH19 3DZ

Tel: 01342 414266
Fax: 01342 414005
Mailto:[log in to unmask]


-----Original Message-----
From: Gordon Smith [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 16 June 2005 16:14
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: OVID vs DIALOG


No mention of Ovid here that I can see. Does anyone who has the choice
of Ovid and Dialog actually prefer Dialog? 

Gordon.



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.

>>> Scott Gibbens <[log in to unmask]> 16/06/2005 13:46:36 >>>
Dear All

For your information I enclose some information on the comments below,
as I
know that our Account Manager at Dialog is out of the country at the
moment
and unable to reply. The NHS has a  Technical Reference Group which
works
with all our information providers in improving the service they
provide,
and as such a number of improvements are always in the pipeline.

Regards
Scott Gibbens
NHS National Core Content Manager

Dialog:

* Confusing language e.g. "link to fully indexed abstract" and not
immediately obvious what different functions do (e.g. split, rank)
SG: NHS staff have been asked what they would like "link to fully
indexed
abstract" to say instead as this text can be easily changed. I think it
is
better then "link to full reference" which most end users think means
full
text!

* Still being worked on/amended. Changes from day to day!
SG: The service it being amended and improved based on customer
feddback
and certainly does not change  day to day. I would much prefer to work
with
an information provider that does respond so positively to customer
feedback

* Not very intuitive. Less obvious how to navigate through pages,
download references etc...
SG: Seems easy to me - click on next titles to see the next 20. Go to
the
bottom of the page to save, print or email.


* 2 searches are registered whenever you use thesaurus mapping (so
end up with much longer search history than necessary)
SG: The standard results and thesaurus mapping results are both shown.
I
would have thought this is a major advantage.

* Downloading references is much more complicated/time consuming.
Not immediately obvious how to go about it. Not all details of
citation
are entered into Ref man. Missed out year, and volume, issue and page
numbers.
SG: This depends on how much information you choose to download via
the
Short, Medium or Full format of records

* Often problems with links to full text journals from Dialog
SG: This is one of the issues ANY linking system will have. The term
often
implies this happens a lot - rarely would be a much better term.

* Thesaurus mapping algorithms are different. Terms are displayed
with the most common first so often get a bizarre list of terms to
choose from in Dialog, rather than relevant related terms.
SG: The Thesaurus mapping comment is often received. it should be made
clear that Dialog use standard thesaurus mapping - NOT vocaulary
mapping as
some other providers do.

* Discrepancies when exploding descriptors: selecting Explode
under Thesaurus mapping in Medline and Embase returns less results
than
if each of the related terms under all trees are selected.
SG: Reasons for this have been discussed on the NHS Core Content list
before


* Sometimes very slow. Often down.
SG: This is simply not true. We monitor ALL the core content
resources.
Dialog is the best performing of all of them and is usually only down
during SCHEDULED downtime on a Saturday morning

* No access to ACP journal club
SG: This is not a resource the NHS subscribes to and is certainly not
a
Dialog issue!

* Dialog is inadequate for systematic reviews as it can't cope
with unlimited truncation
SG: Yes it can - you just need to understand how to use the system
properly!

* Dialog is found to be fairly unresponsive, interface is too
generic for people who like to focus on Medline and some of it's
terminology can be misleading and/or confusing
SG: Is the answer to have a radically different interface to each
database -
that would be a disaster.
*****************************************************************************************************
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]