This is a closer one than yesterday’s, however I chose Mosman Library because the second article found online was a book critique in a newspaper, rather than a scholarly article. As Ken D reported the time it took him to find his answers, perhaps Jane B could also do this, so that timeliness is a consistent comparison.

— Naomi    posted 26 May 2009    #

I agree with Naomi. Mosman Library provided a second article with less perceived bias. I also would like to know how long it took Jane B to complete the search.

— Margaret    posted 26 May 2009    #

If you vote, please leave a comment explaining your choice. Thanks Naomi and Margaret for yours.

And I’ve locked off voting for each round after 24 hours – so we can see the progress round by round over the week. Voting for this round will close at midday Wednesday.

— Bernard D (admin)   posted 26 May 2009    #

I agree with Naomi, I think the book review was not really useful. I certainly wouldn’t point an enquirer to a book review unless that is what they ask for.

— Joanne   posted 26 May 2009    #

Ken D (that search engine) won this round due to the time taken in finding a quick answer. Jane B (Mosman Library) didnt state the time taken.

— Wang Library   posted 26 May 2009    #

Just so you know it took me less than 3 minutes to get to the answer on
AP-AFT

— Jane B   posted 26 May 2009    #

Jane B did report the initial 35 seconds’ elapsed time for her first result. I speculate that it took very little longer than that to add the additional search term and obtain the new result. The library gets the vote.

— Fred   posted 26 May 2009    #

There’s no contest now that Jane has said the search only took 3 minutes. She’s the clear winner – finding helpful articles as opposed to book critiques and in a shorter time.

— Lauren   posted 26 May 2009    #

Mosman Library gets my vote as I also agree with Naomi, especially now we know it took them less than 3 minutes.

— Robyn    posted 26 May 2009    #

Is someone who leaves their school homework to the night before up for the Griffith Review – too advanced perhaps? The alternative result however is the Green Left reporting on a journalist reporting on journalists. Hmm. The client did ask for journal articles, so I’m voting for Mosman. But really interesting to see you both came up with the NIT article first!

— CD   posted 26 May 2009    #

Not voting because my critique of Ken D’s answer is to do with his human choice of material available, not the method he used. If the second item was the only other item he found that was vaguely scholarly, then my vote goes to Jane B and her method.

— Kathryn G   posted 26 May 2009    #

I agree with Naomi, one of Ken D’s articles was a book review, albeit a good one.

— Barbara   posted 26 May 2009    #

Voted for Mosman Library. For the same reason – the credibility of the second source. The time it took would have helped with my choice too.

— Claire   posted 26 May 2009    #

Voted for the Librarian – second source more credible, also noted that the results from THAT search engine required scrolling to the end of the page to find the result

— Mark   posted 26 May 2009    #

Sorry Jane B…because no time was mentioned in the description of how long did it take to find your answer..Customers tend to want the information as soon as possible.
Since you posted a comment after my remark saying it took only 3 mins..I would retract my vote and give Mosman Library (you Jane B), the thumbs up!! (Pity the software wont allow me to do that!)

— Wang Library   posted 26 May 2009    #

All the way for Jane! Ken’s second answer was only a critic of a book and therefore unlikely to satisfy the clients needs for a better analysis of the topic.

Jane’s results also appear to be a little more “authoritative” than Ken’s.

— Matthew D   posted 26 May 2009    #

Interesting one, because it is current and topical the advantages of online subscription databases will be far less pronounced. However Ken D’s inclination to go twittering is a worry. Vox populi is not a great way to get thought out, researched data. It is however a good way to get uninformed opinions, of which that search engine abounds. Ken D has quickly found a couple of articles but they are both from a particular political perspective which would mean there is a lack of balance

— Brian Field   posted 26 May 2009    #

Jane B for more authoritive articles that will be acceptable in an assignment reference list.

— alison   posted 26 May 2009    #

That search engine wins because why use a scholarly article about journalism, making it a secondary source, when you can find your primary source in the journalism and media itself. Plus the time efficiency counts big time considering the PAPER IS DUE TOMORROW! It’s been a while since you’ve all been in library school, hasn’t it?

— marishkajuko   posted 26 May 2009    #

Mosman Library Wins out on this occasion. The first article both searches found, so the difference came down to the second.

The google search came up with a review of a book published on a website, whilst the librarian came up with an article from a Journal written by a researcher on the topic.

— Adrian   posted 26 May 2009    #

I’m voting for Mosman Library, because Green Left is hardly an un-biased source! Sorry Ken, but your lean 10 minutes could’ve stretched to include checking the sources of your information. You gave the kid ‘any’ answer, not the best answer you could get.

— Melanie   posted 26 May 2009    #

For reasons already given by Naomi and Margaret, I chose Mosman Library. Was surprised, however, that they both cited the same first article.

— Mike B   posted 26 May 2009    #

I’d say that Mosman Library won this round because it was able to provide the user with two sources that deal exactly with the question placed.

The 2nd source found by Ken was a review of a book instead of an article.

— Marcelo   posted 26 May 2009    #

While the search engine gets an edge based on how easily it could obtain one of the same articles found behind the database wall, the library ultimately wins out by virtue of how much better the second article was.

— Toby   posted 26 May 2009    #

I chose the Mosman Library because the librarian found two relevant articles, compared to one and a book review. Therefore the quality and relevance of results appears to be better. I agree with Naomi’s comment about using timeliness as a consistent comparison. Also, I would like to know how many results the G search returned before the gold was found.
but it is a very interesting comparison

— Margaret   posted 26 May 2009    #

Equal marks for this one. Ken gets extra marks for posting article out.
Are e-mail addresses a required part of registration process for Mosman Library?

— Steph   posted 27 May 2009    #

The client asked for journal articles, not reviews. Agree with Margaret – Jane B provided a second article that may provide both sides of the debate. Ken D did not really provide what was asked for – full text journal articles.

— Lyn   posted 27 May 2009    #

It is great to see that both search techniques came up with a common article. I also chose Mosman Library, as both articles seem to be particularly relevant. The second article in particular was the deciding factor for me.

— Sheridan   posted 27 May 2009    #

I agree with Naomi and Margaret. I voted for Jane B because of the choice of the second article. I’m also not sure that “The Green Left” could be considered a mainstream “journal” and I might have concerns about the objectivity of the review.

— Liber8ed   posted 27 May 2009    #

I voted for Mosman Library, for the main reason already cited, that is, authoritative articles suitable for quoting in an assignment.
I am curious though, why both searchers chose ‘journalism’ as a search term; I would have chosen ‘media’ which may have resulted in more hits.

— Caro   posted 27 May 2009    #

Voted for Mosman Library – articles were credible.

— Vesna   posted 27 May 2009    #

a critique on a book isn’t really and information answer suitable for a school assignment requiring scholarly full text sources.

The reference librarian’s second source was much more targeted to the information need.

Google was built by librarians anyway…

— tracey fisk   posted 27 May 2009    #

this was a simple request and for something more specific or on a more technical subject a subscription database is more likely to have better results. databeses can also be searched just as quickly as google. the difficulty lies in making people aware of the capability of databases.

— melanie   posted 27 May 2009    #

Mosman Library definitely wins. A book review in an un-biased publication such as the Green Left isnt an article. Perhaps if the actual book had then been obtained it would have been more helpful.

Jane B didn’t mention how long the search took her, but no doubt it wouldn’t have taken much longer than 10 minutes either. Also, Jane B’s search was more efficient, with only 2 results. I am sure the internet search came back with hundreds of results, and Ken D then had to scan through and pick those he thought would be most relevant.

— Marisa   posted 27 May 2009    #

I repeated Ken D.‘s search on that Search Engine entry screen, and got 838 results, and then on the News search, and got one article http://www.greenleft.org.au/2009/796/40988

Using the News “all dates” search, I returned 17 hits.

So I guess my point here is that in both sets of results, the answers provided are highly filtered by Jane and Ken from all the possible results. The average punter using just the search engine is either overwhelmed or underwhelmed with response.

— Mark   posted 27 May 2009    #