EBM and Clinical Support Librarians@UCHC

A blog for medical students, faculty and librarians about their use of evidence based medicine, clinical literature, Web 2.0, sources and search strategies

Category Archives: Web 2.0 and Geek Stuff

News, A Look Back: Happy New Year and Picks for Best Posts

First:  Best wishes for a Happy and Healthy New Year 2011 to everyone! 

Since I have been writing this blog (which began in July 2007), I have yet to assemble a list of  “favorite posts” from the backlist.  The first week of a brand New Year seems like a good time to offer up this collection.

Here’s a list of top picks from the EBM & Clinical Support Librarians@UCHC blog (in no particular order):

  • Digital Natives (Jun 12 2008) compares the learning environment of today’s graduate students with those from my generation (i.e., circa 1970’s).
  • A continuing series called Show Me The EvidencePart 1 is linked here. Part 2 – go here.  And Part 3 (which has received the most hits over time) link is here.

That’s a compilation to start out the New Year, folks – and thanks for reading this blog.

 


 

Advertisements

News, Clinical Resources, iPhone Apps: FirstConsult

Here’s some good news!  On Nov 6 2010, Elsevier Health, producer of the MD Consult/FirstConsult database, announced their free FirstConsult app for iPhone, iPod Touch or iPad .

UCHC Library is an institutional subscriber to the MD Consult database, which enables any registered library user to access the First Consult database via their mobile device.  If you haven’t used FirstConsult before, it is a clinical point-of-care resource designed for busy clinicians who need fast answers in a “wherever, whenever” wireless environment.  Below is a screenshot of  First Consult apps page from iTunes:

Source: http://www.mdconsult.com/php/227775087-4/homepage – All rights reserved – Copyright 2010

_______________________________________________

Here are instructions on how to make it work on your iPhone/iPad:

1.       If you have not previously set up an account with MD Consult, first you’ll need to create one (which is free and quick).  Go to http://library.uchc.edu, then click on Databases, then scroll down to the MD Consult link.

The “Create Account” button is in the upper right-hand corner. (Without this step, your free FirstConsult app will only work for 60 days).  See the screenshot below:

Image Source: http://www.mdconsult.com/php/227775087-4/homepage – All rights reserved – Copyright 2010

2.      Next, using your mobile device, log into your MD Consult account.  Then go to the iPhone App Store.  Download the FirstConsult app into your device.  Medical topics download occurs automatically; you should budget 30 minutes for the initial data downloading.

If you have any questions or problems with getting this to work, please call UCHC Library Computer Education Center staff at 860-679-3772.

News, Information Seeking Behaviors, Research: Project Information Literacy surveys College Students

Wow…  Been away from blogging for so long I’m relieved to remember how it works! 8) *

Health literacy is a key focus for librarians who interact frequently with patients looking for information about their own health issues.

Larger, more universal information-seeking behaviors and lifelong learning strategies are topics of ongoing interest to two information scientists at the University of Washington Information School who started Project Information Literacy (PIL) in 2008. Lead researcher Alison P. Head is the Co-Director of the project along with Michael Eisenberg, professor at the iSchool. Funding is provided by the MacArthur Foundation.  Here is a description of the scope of PIL from the home page:

Project Information Literacy is a study “across” different types of campuses (community colleges, state colleges, and public and private universities) from different geographic areas in the U.S.  Our goal is to help fill in some of the “missing pieces” of the information literacy puzzle and provide data that helps answer some of the following questions:  1) How do early adults (in their own words) put their information literacy competencies into practice in learning environments in a digital age, regardless of how they may measure up to standards for being information literate? 2) With the proliferation of online resources and new technologies, how do early adults recognize the information needs they may have and in turn, how do they locate, evaluate, select and use the information that is needed? 3) How can teaching the critical and information literacy skills that are needed to enable lifelong learning be more effectively transferred to college students? “

The newest progress report from PIL was published Nov 1 2010 and may be of interest to anyone who uses a real or digital library in 2010, as it describes findings from a large survey of undergraduate students from around the U.S., asking 22 standard questions about how they plan, execute and assess their research efforts for required course work.

It is 72 pages in length, and entitled “Truth Be Told: How College Students Evaluate and Use Information in the Digital Age“, available free and online for anyone to read. Following is an excerpt from the introduction:

In this [2010] report, we continue our investigation by asking how students evaluate information and use information once they have found it. What difficulties do students encounter with course-related and everyday life research from start to finish? We collected data to answer these questions by administering a student survey in the spring of 2010 to 112,844 undergraduates. Our findings are based on a collective sample of 8,353 students enrolled at 25 U.S. colleges and universities “.

Source: http://projectinfolit.org/pdfs/PIL_Fall2010_Survey_FullReport1.pdf

_______________________

I was interested to read these “background” questions that Dr. Head and Dr. Eisenberg wanted to learn more about:

Source: http://projectinfolit.org/pdfs/PIL_Fall2010_Survey_FullReport1.pdf

Their work is of practical value to anyone who uses – or works in – an academic library.

Also see a video about Project Information Literacy on YouTube, at this link.

.

*My daughter told me to stop using Smiley Faces, but that “it’s OK because I don’t know any better”.

 

 

 

News: Here’s a new look for the Blog

Whenever WordPress announces that a new theme has been added to their collection of free templates, I test them  out.  This new theme, zBench, is a winner! Hope you like it.  Bear with me while I fidget with the widgets.

Thanks, WordPress.

This week I will get back to blogging after a very active teaching load in October.

News, Students, Technologies: Welcoming a New Class

As those of us in the library begin to meet our newest Class of 2014 medical, dental and doctoral students who have arrived at UCHC this week (and who were likely born in 1988), I am reminded of the Beloit College Mindset List, just published this month.  Read it here: http://www.beloit.edu/mindset/2014.php

Here is an excerpt from the intro to the 12th edition:  “These students [born in 1992] will be armed with iPhones and BlackBerries, on which making a phone call will be only one of many, many functions they will perform. They will now be awash with a computerized technology that will not distinguish information and knowledge. So it will be up to their professors to help them.  A generation accustomed to instant access will need to acquire the patience of scholarship. They will discover how to research information in books and journals and not just on-line.”

Folllowing are a few statements from the current list, reflecting on the formative environment of the newest crop of college freshman:

  • ” DNA fingerprinting and maps of the human genome have always existed.
  • ” Leno and Letterman have always been trading insults on opposing networks.
  • ” Unless they found one in their grandparents’ closet, they have never seen a carousel of Kodachrome slides.
  • ” Computers have never lacked a CD-ROM disk drive
  • ” The first home computer they probably touched was an Apple II or Mac II; they are now in a museum.
  • ” The nation has never approved of the job Congress is doing. “

________________________________

Post Script…   Readers, this new WordPress theme is called Twenty Ten.
What do you think of the new blog design? 8)

News, Progress: New Look for the Blog

Imagine my surprise to return from vacation this Monday to discover that the EBM & Clinical Support Librarians@UCHC blog has been given a new look…. not chosen by me!  WordPress has discontinued the former blog-theme Cutline in favor of a theme they introduced in early August, called Coraline.  So while I am sorting out where all my widgets and doo-dads went, please bear with me.

Teaching & Learning in Medicine, Research Methodology, Biostatistics: Show Me the Evidence (Part 3)

This post is the third in a series entitled Show Me the Evidence. It is about the evidence gained from bibliometric data and journal impact factor analysis.

Let’s start with an excerpt from an 2008 article:

The assumption that Impact Factor (IF) is a number absolutely proportional to science quality has led to misuses beyond the index’s original scope, even in the opinion of its devisor*. When the IF is inappropriately attributed to all articles within a single journal, it leads to false applications regarding the  evaluation of individual scientists or research groups. This is, unfortunately, a common practice, especially among governmental funding boards and academic institutions entitled to judge scientists for positioning and grant allocation. The IF has thus accumulated huge strength and importance, mainly implied by its, at least to a degree, undue application as an index of overall scientific quality“.

Excerpt on page 1 from “The Top-Ten in Journal Impact Factor Manipulation” by ME Falagas and VG Alexiou, published in Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz). 2008 Jul-Aug;56(4):223-6 – All rights reserved – Copyright 2010

__________________________________

This post was sparked by a recent reference question from a retired professor who needed some assistance on how to find and search the Journal Citation Reports® database*, which is described by its’ producer, Thomson Reuters,  in this way:

Journal Citation Reports® (JCR) offers a systematic, objective means to critically evaluate the world’s leading journals, with quantifiable, statistical information based on citation data. By compiling articles’ cited references, JCR® helps to measure research influence and impact at the journal and category levels, and shows the relationship between citing and cited journals. “

Text source: Thomson-Reuters –http://wokinfo.com/products_tools/analytical/jcr/ – All rights reserved – Copyright 2010

So let’s take a look ways to find current evidence about publication patterns in the biomedical literature.

There were two things about JCR® that needed explanation for the professor.  First, the latest annual edition of JCR® was released in June 2010 and indexes journal citation data for the 2008 calendar year only (not 2009).  Second, only those journal titles indexed in the Web of Science database* are searchable in JCR®.

As one example: Let’s say that you’re a scientist working on stem cell research and you subscribe to ten international journals that are critical to your continuing professional knowledge, lab work and research.  It’ll be a good idea to check the list of 6,600+ journals that are included in the Web of Science database in order to determine if your “best” journals are searchable in Journal Citation Reports®.  If those titles are not covered in JCR®, you’ll be missing essential facts for comparing bibliometric data.

Here is a screenshot of a search done on the 2009 JCR® database for journals indexed under Cell and Tissue Engineering:

Image source: Thomson-Reuters – All rights reserved – Copyright 2010

.

Some folks assume that “every journal in the world” is included in Journal Citation Reports, but that’s not the case.  9,100 journal titles were indexed in the 2009 edition.

Another thing to know is that there are six subsets available for annual subscription from  JCR® and UConn Libraries subscribes only to these two: Science Citation Index Expanded (indexing of 7,100 major journals across 150 disciplines and Social Sciences Citation Index (2,474 journals across 50 social science disciplines).

Below is a screenshot from an online tutorial about ways to search Journal Citations Reports® (with my added comment in the upper left-hand corner):

Image source: Thomson-Reuters – http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/science_products/a-z/journal_citation_reports – All rights reserved – Copyright 2010

______________________________

Next, the professor asked: “I have a manuscript to submit for publication.  Is this the only place I should use to look at statistics about specific journal titles? “.

While JCR® is an important reference resource, it’s neither free or the only one available worldwide for researchers to search.  Below are sites which provide evidence that there are other ways to do citation analysis in year 2010 (some are free, some are via subscription).

______________________________

SCImago Journal & Country Rank Indicator (SJR). I like this site – it is easy to learn to use.  There are many ways to search their datasets (ranked by country, by journal title, by countries grouped by continent, etc.).  I also found their Map generators intriguing, which show comparative relationships between discipline or subject-specific citations.

Below is a screenshot of the SCImago Journal & Country Rank page showing a search done on Year “2008”,  “Medicine” as a general category, “Emergency Medicine” as a specialty and USA for the “country, with a limit for displaying journals that had at minimum 12 citable documents over 8 years:

Image source: http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php – All rights reserved – Copyright 2010

.

Link here to a 2007 paper written by the creators of SCImago which describe the process by which journals are ranked on their site.

__________________________________

Those who have access to the Scopus database* through their library may have already discovered the Scopus Journal Analyzer, where allows one to select a discipline (shown below as “Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology”) and a journal title (“Cell” was searched below) and then choose method of analysis to determine journal impact.  Elsevier is the producer of the Scopus database. 15,000 journal titles are indexed for inclusion in Scopus analytics.

A screenshot below shows results of a search performed in Scopus Journal Analyzer recently for the broad topic of Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology.  The journal Cell holds the most-cited place in the list (no surprise there):

.

The journal analyzer can be sorted using the following criteria: SJR versus SNIP.  I  found out that four years of data are necessary for sorting results using these filters.  Below, see a different screenshot:  rankings by SJR and SNIP for the same subject area:

.

Explanations for SJR and SNIP were easily found in the Scopus Help section (screenshots shown below):   

Credit for all Scopus Images shown above: Elsevier B.V. – All rights reserved – Copyright 2010

Want a different way to search Scopus analytics for evidence? Use the search feature in Journal Analyzer to select and compare up to ten Scopus sources on number of citations, documents, and percentage not cited.

A 12-page PDF white paper (from 2006) is available to download from Scopus, entitled “Using Scopus for Bibliometric Analysis: A Users’ Guide“.  Following is an excerpt from that document:

Introduced in January 2006, the Scopus Citation Tracker enables users to easily evaluate research by using citation data. This tool offers at-a-glance
intelligence about the influence of a set of articles, an author or group of authors over time, so users can quickly spot trends using a visual table of citations broken down by article and chronology
. “

Text Source:  Courtesy of Elsevier B.V. – All rights reserved – Copyright 2010

Two other Scopus pages which I found useful were the Scopus Top Cited page and Scopus Journal Metrics Factsheet.

______________________________

No use trying to make this post pithy.  It would be an error not to mention the following means of assessing the scientific literature:  Eigenfactor, h-index and JANE.

University of Washington biology professor Carl Bergstrom and colleagues created the  Eigenfactor Project™.   The main webpage is  http://www.eigenfactor.org.

Give the interactive map a try: click here. Here is an example for Molecular & Cell Biology Map:

Image Credit:  http://www.eigenfactor.org/map/ –  All rights reserved – Copyright 2010

Following is an excerpt from a May 2007 article that Dr. Bergstrom wrote for the Association of College and Research Libraries publication, College & Research Library News:

We can view the Eigenfactor score of a journal as a rough estimate of how often a journal will be used by scholars. The Eigenfactor algorithm corresponds to a simple model of research in which readers follow citations as they move from journal to journal. The algorithm effectively calculates the trajectory of a hypothetical “random researcher” who behaves as follows: Our random researcher begins by going to the library and selecting a journal article at random. After reading the article, she selects at random one of the citations from the article. She then proceeds to the cited work and reads a random article there. She selects a new citation from this article, and follows that citation to her next journal volume. The researcher does this ad infinitum.

” Since we lack the time to carry out this experiment in practice, Eigenfactor uses mathematics to simulate this process.

” Because our random researcher moves among journals according to the citation network that connects them, the frequency with which she visits each journal gives us a measure of that journal’s importance within network of academic citations. Moreover, if real researchers find a sizable fraction of the articles that they read by following citation chains, the amount of time that our random researcher spends with each journal may give us a reasonable estimate of the amount of time that real researchers spend with each journal.

Text source: College & Research Library News – Vol 68:5 (May 2007) – All rights reserved – Copyright 2010

A slideshow presentation created by Dr. Bergstrom and presented at a conference hosted by Microsoft in 2009 can be viewed here.

Professor Alan Fersht wrote an article in 2009 published in PNAS Vol. 106(17):6883-4 (Apr 28 2009) entitled “The Most Influential Journals: Impact Factor and Eigenfactor” which is available free online on the PubMedCentral website.

_______________________________

Physics professor Jorge E. Hirsch wrote a paper published in 2005 in PNAS entitled “An Index to Quantify an Individual’s Scientific Research Output“, in which he outlined the algorithm known as the Hirsch Index (or h-Index).

And – LOL – according to Scopus, that PNAS paper by Dr. Hirsch has been cited 575 times!

______________________________

JANE (or Journal Author/Name Estimator) is a software tool created in 2007 by members of the Biosemantics Group, a collaborative group at the Medical Informatics department of the Erasmus MC University Medical Center of Rotterdam and the Center for Human and Clinical Genetics of the Leiden University Medical Center.  Following is  how the creators of JANE describe the purpose of the tool:

Have you recently written a paper, but you’re not sure to which journal you should submit it? Or are you an editor, and do you need to find reviewers for a particular paper? JANE can help!  Just enter the title and/or abstract of the paper in the box, and click on ‘Find journals’ or ‘Find authors”.  JANE will then compare your document to millions of documents in Medline [over 10 years] to find the best matching journals or authors. ”  —

Source: http://www.biosemantics.org/index.php?page=jane – All rights reserved – Copyright 2010

M. J. Schuemie and J.A. Kors – two of the creators of JANE – published a paper about the software in the journal Bioinformatics – Vol 24:5 (Mar 1 2008).

______________________________

* Dr. Eugene Garfield was a co-founder of the Institute for Scientific Information, the producer of Science Citation Index.  A professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a prolific author, Dr. Garfield is now 85 years old.  Here is a link to his website.

In 1955, he wrote a paper titled “Citation Indexes to Science: A New Dimension in Documentation through Association of Ideas“, published in the journal Science (Vol. 122:108-111).  The online version is available to be read at this link.

From looking around on his Library website (url above), I think he has a sense of humor and the soul of an archivist. A great deal of his professional life has been taken up thinking about information management, and the ways in which scientists use their literature. I – and other librarians everywhere – should thank him for being an early adopter!

For example, in a commentary he wrote in 1963 published in the journal Science (Vol. 141:3579 – Aug 2 1963), titled “Citations in Popular and Interpretive Science Writing“, he admonishes mainstream periodical editors for not including basic volume and issue information.  Here is a direct quote: ” Librarians and scientists spend hundreds of hours tracking down precise literature citations which are missing in articles published in otherwise reputable publications like Scientific American, the New York Times, or The Sciences-a task that could be eliminated if brief but complete citations were given. This is certainly false economy and annoying “.  Garfield… You go!

The text of a presentation he gave at the International Congress on Peer Review And Biomedical Publication (2005) can be read online at  “The Agony and the Ecstasy: The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor“.

I performed an author search on PubMed for his publications and created a small group of citations, those search results can be viewed here.

______________________________

In addition to thanking Dr. Garfield for creating this field of citation analysis, there are many fellow health science or academic librarians whose work has helped me understand this complex subject, or who have made public their own instruction for others to benefit from. These folks deserve recognition (and applause!).

Thanks to UCHC collection management librarian, Arta Dobbs, for her suggestions and explanations of sources and methods of bibliometric analysis.

Thanks to Janice Flahiff and Jolene Miller, librarians at Mulford Health Science, University of Toledo (Ohio) who have written a great fact sheet on the uses and misuses of interpreting journal impact factors.

Props to Kathi Sarli, health science librarian at Bernard Becker Medical Library of Washington University of St. Louis,  wrote a very useful library guide called “Tools for Authors“… check the section-tab for “Preparing for Publication“.

I enjoyed watching an excellent tutorial on Journal Impact Factors produced by librarians at the Ebling Library for the Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Finally, remember this is all about Publish or Perish.


* Subscription via UCHC Library.  If off-campus, use your library proxy number to connect.

News, Libraries, Librarianship: Medlib’s Round Carnival Edition 2.5!

This is the June 2010 edition of Medlib’s Round Carnival.

This collection of links have been submitted by a (worldwide) group of dedicated bloggers… veteran medical librarians along with a new health science librarian, physicians and scientists contributing to the mix!

The broad  topic of this Carnival is about service. Librarians talk a lot among themselves about providing quality information services and library collections for their core users.   We are great believers in training our library visitors to recognize quality information sources, showing them what to search,  how to search and how to appraise those sources effectively; we also spend considerable time, effort and money to create digital or physical library collections that meet the information needs of our users.  Doing these things well is (actually) more difficult than it appears…  not as difficult as climbing the summit of Mount Everest but definitely made more challenging in an era of rapidly rising costs, disappearing personnel and shrinking budgets.

So without further ado, here is the Medlib’s Round Blog Carnival 2.5.

Jacqueline, blogger at Laika‘s MedLibLog recently wrote:  “It is so important that you know the pros and cons of databases and that you think before you even start searching“. Read her evidence-based discussion here:  “PubMed versus Google Scholar for Retrieving Evidence” (Jun 6 2010).

~   ~   ~   ~   ~    ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~

Medical Library Association holds an annual conference, which this year was held May 21-26 in Washington, DCKrafty Librarian blogger Michelle Kraft was a conference speaker and official blogger at MLA.  She wrote MLA ’10 Week in Review, an excellent summary and set of links to presentations and other conference activities on her blog – especially valuable to those of us who weren’t able to attend the meeting.

~   ~   ~   ~   ~    ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~

As a library student, you don’t get many chances to really dig your teeth into searching databases, unless you’re working on a thesis or have a really extraordinary work opportunity. Basic reference as a student usually involves basic searches for patrons, maybe some instruction, more than a little help given to new or remedial library users. This is why my experience with a systematic search team will be so memorable as a learning experience as I begin to launch my career as a health librarian. “

So wrote recent MLS graduate, Daniel Hooker, who blogs about Health Libraries, Medicine and the Web in a recent post about performing his First Systematic Search using the OvidSP search platform.  Check out the vintage librarian cartoon – what a laugh!

~   ~   ~   ~   ~    ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~

Psychiatrist Walter van den Broek, who blogs at Dr. Shock, wrote an interesting post for the Carnival entitled “What’s Wrong with the Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest?” (Jun 6 2010).

~   ~   ~   ~   ~    ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~

Relying on donations, librarian-volunteers collect and ship medical textbooks to American military personnel stationed in war zones throughout the world.  Their service mission is described on the blog Operation Medical Libraries:

” The mission of Operation Medical Libraries is to collect and distribute current medical textbooks and journals to war-torn countries through a partnership with American medical schools, hospitals, and physicians and the United States military… and

to foster the creation of permanent medical libraries and support the expansion of existing collections in conflict regions where health care education and the practice of medicine are suffering “.

Text Source: http://operationmedicallibraries.blogspot.com/ – All rights reserved – Copyright 2010

This post on the OML blog is about books sent to Afghanistan in 2009 and the photo below shows a happy library user in that facility:

Photo source: http://operationmedicallibraries.blogspot.com/2009/05/oml-library-in-bagram-af-provides.html – All rights reserved – copyright 2010

~   ~   ~   ~   ~    ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~

Patients or family members are a common sight in the medical library, seeking current, credible medical information, or advice on where to find those patient education materials.  Technologist-librarian PF Anderson contributes two items to this Carnival on those topics:

Video Source: http://www.youtube.com – All rights reserved – Copyright 2010

~   ~   ~   ~   ~    ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~

  • BitesizeBio, a blog written by and for lab biologists, offers practical advice on giving, receiving, qualifying and implementing advice in the Apr 26 2010 post, “The Art of Giving of Advice“.

~   ~   ~   ~   ~    ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~

And that’s Medlib’s Round Blog Carnival Edition 2.5, folks!  Hope you enjoyed reading it. To all those who sent in submissions, I am grateful and send you heartfelt thanks!

The next edition of MedLib’s Round (July 2010) will be hosted at Laika‘s MedLibLog.

If you have material to submit for that edition, please use this form.  To subscribe to an RSS feed for Medlib’s Round, click here here.

News, Blogs: 2nd Call for submitting to Medlib’s Round Blog Carnival – June 2010

This blog is hosting the June 2010 edition of Medlib’s Round Blog Carnival.

Please join this forum to share your stories about the work and value provided by health science librarians or medical library collections, especially from those involved in teaching or training others to use biomedical literature.

Who should submit to the Medlib’s Round? Health Science bloggers from around the world.

What are the main ideas?

Reference Questions (or People) I Won’t Forget.   Librarians: Please share some positive “memorable” encounters that took place in a public service/reference desk setting, over your career.

Health Science Libraries or Librarians: How Have We Helped You ? Clinicians, researchers,  pharmacists, graduate students, nurses: If your clinical or educational work as a scientist or care-provider has been positively enhanced by working with a librarian or librarian-instructors in health science library settings, please share your stories with us.

Is there a deadline to submit an entry? Yes – please write your article, post it to your blog and send it to BlogCarnival.com no later than Tuesday, June 8th.

How do I submit an article? Copy the URL of your blog post, then go to BlogCarnival.com and paste the URL into their online form.  (See screenshot below).  BlogCarnival will  manage it from there.

Image/Photo Credit: http://blogcarnival.com/ – All rights reserved – Copyright 2010

________________________.

Questions? Send an email message to ebmblog@gmail.com

Thank you!

The Friday Post #50: Nerd, Geek or Dork? Fish or Search? and a Vintage Cartoon

Here’s the 50th Friday Post!

OK, I have taken the “Nerd? Geek? or Dork? Test“. You can too.

Here are my results:

Image/Source credit: http://www.okcupid.com/tests/the-nerd-geek-or-dork-test – All rights reserved – Copyright 2010

________________________________

“Fishing”  as “searching” parable

(Apologies to John Steinbeck)

There are good things so in the tide pools and interesting thoughts to be generated from the seeing.   Every new eye applied to the peephole which looks out at the world may fish in some new beauty and some new pattern, and the world of the human mind must be enriched by such fishing. “

Source: From a foreword written by John Steinbeck for the 3rd edition of Between Pacific Tides, written by Ed Ricketts and Jack Calvin’s book (originally published in 1939).

.

Here is a nerdy-librarian transposition of such an elegant statement about marine life and cephalopods:

” There are good things so in the tide pools databases, and interesting thoughts to be generated from the seeing searching.   Every new eye applied to the peephole Google, which looks out at the world, may fish in some new beauty and or discover some new pattern [of relational knowledge], and the world of the human mind must be enriched by such fishing knowledge retrieval. “

Source:  Creaky being silly (or stupid or both)

_____________________________________

Anyone who reads this blog might recall that I’m fond of cephalopods. However, even I am very doubtful about this unusual video (dialog in Japanese) called Baby Octopus (claymation), circa 1960’s:

Source:  http://www.YouTube.com – All rights reserved – Copyright 2010

.

My goodness, what happened to the baby octopus? Is that anyway to treat a cephalopod?  No.

____________________________________

That’s the Friday Post #50 for May 21 2010, folks.

Enjoy this beautiful weather.