Having just returned from PubMed training last monday when 2.0 came up, I
would like to agree with Mike Kronenfeld and his presentation on the means
to access Medline information.

Yes there were some glitches and bugs in the program, however, I don't
think we should worry about this too much because the people who are
putting together PubMed are making changes and the database/search engine
is quickly evolving, and the bugs will be fixed and fixed in a timely
fashion I believe.  In the mean time there were workarounds for almost all
the bugs.  The trainers are competent and worked really hard last week!

How many of us remember making suggestions to ELHILL and then waiting years
to see if they would be incorporated?

How many of us remember the first Grateful Med and waiting years for our
suggestions to also be incorporated? If at all?

PubMed officially came on board this last summer and we already have 2.0
and many of our suggestions have been incorporated. I'm not going to say
it's perfect but it is dynamic and evolving.

ELHILL is a 60's product
Grateful Med is an 80's product and
PubMed is a product of the internet/webbed 90's.

I think we are fortunate to be living/working in this time.

P.S. the new workbook for PubMed will be available for downloading after
it's updated to include 2.0 information.

############################################################
Margaret Vugrin MSLS, AHIP      Voice:  806-743-2241
Reference Librarian             FAX:    806-743-2218
TTUHSC Library
Lubbock, TX  79430              e-mail: [log in to unmask]
############################################################