I started out putting this as a comment on Patricia’s post, in her response to Megan’s, but it was getting long and post-ceptiony, so I’m going with it here:
I think the key, and Megan already nailed it quite nicely, is not that Scout is evil in itself, but that it is only really effective if you’re performing a known search, as Coco said. The NCSU and UMichigan models are true “discovery” models, where the search engine presents an already-faceted set of results that enable a novice searcher to continue his/her search, rather than a vomitous list that leaves the searcher bewildered with vague refinement options, like Scout. And that’s where I think we Scout killers are left wanting to commit Scouticide: to use it effectively, one must either be an experienced searcher with information literacy; or, (and you alluded to this yourself, Patricia) must facet the search manually before performing it. And that’s why I think Megan’s dead on that Scout should not be the default search for UA library (or any library): because as a single search box, it gives the impression that it’s trying to be Google, and you have to be an expert to know it’s not.

“…as a single search box, it gives the impression that it’s trying to be Google, and you have to be an expert to know it’s not.” You hit the nail right on the head with that sentence! I have workshops coming up wherein I have to teach students how to search through databases, and the Coco article along with everyone’s commentary on it has really made me re-think my strategy.
I agree with JCrump:
http://hellinahandbasket.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Hammer-and-Nail.jpg
And the 2013 award for “best use of a word that is not actually a real word” goes to…GINA! For “Scouticide” !!!
[...] through Scout’s effusive search results to drinking the water spewing from a fire hydrant. Gina agreed that Scout’s search results are so voluminous that they detract from the [...]