I think we're all singing to the choir.  I don't think we're averse to
learning new methods (a la old dogs, etc), but when it ain't broke, don't
fix it--improve it.  However, this is not on NLM's agenda.  They don't want
to be loved, they want to be respected--by every public user out there & the
hell with us.  Do I sound bitter---no-o--o--o, never!!

Yes, I still use Elhill & will till 9/30.  I've been trying to use "the
new", & do use it for quick & dirty which don't require much in the way of
real input, but for the tough & dirty, Elhill still has my vote.  I guess
when it expires I'll go to Dialog for everything other than the quick &
dirty.

Lee Hover
Director, Scientific Information
Integrated Communications Corp
5 Sylvan Way
Parsippany, NJ 07054

Phone: 973.451.2373
FAX: 973.292.9382

-----Original Message-----
From: Medical Libraries Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Steward, Auburn
Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 10:32 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Demise of Medlars access?


I agree that the loss will cause us to lose the complex searching
capabilities.  I use Toxline frequently but sometimes using the form in IGM
doesn't work for the more complex, multi-term searches.  I get messages
saying that it cannot process the search!!  So I go back to Elhill.  I know
I could use Toxline on Dialog, but I prefer Elhill.  If we are to transition
to web-based searching entirely, something needs to be done to make those
systems more flexible so we can refine our searches as we were taught years
ago on Elhill.  I am willing to learn new forms of access, if they will give
us access to capabilities we once had.

Auburn Steward, MLIS, AHIP
Center for Toxicology & Environmental Health
4301 W. Markham--Slot 767
Hendrix Hall--Suite 100A
Little Rock, AR 72205
501-614-2834
501-614-2835 (fax)
[log in to unmask]
http://www.cteh.uams.edu



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Burdick, Amrita J. [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 9:06 AM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Demise of Medlars access?
>
> I am really concerned about the loss of access points which will happen
> with the
> switchover to the web-based version of searching.  While PubMed has some
> advanced options, many databases -- such as AIDSLINE are available only
> through
> Internet Grateful Med.  Are we really going to lose the capability of
> searching
> many fields (such as chemical registry number, textwords with adjacency,
> author
> institutional affiliation, etc.)  that have been helpful in complex
> searches?  I
> contacted MEDLARS who told me to just enter textwords as MeSH headings
> which is
> an automatic mapping.  The method they suggested for institutional
> affiliation
> simply didn't work. I haven't explored all the other fields and which ones
> work
> and which ones won't but it doesn't look good.
>
> I don't mind learning new forms of access (as long as they work
> efficiently) but
> I am reluctant to lose the complex searching capabilities of Elhill!!!
>
> Amrita Burdick, Clinical Medical Librarian
> UMKC Health Sciences Library
> 2411 Holmes St.
> Kansas City, MO  64108-2792
> [log in to unmask]
> (816) 235-1876