The original . . . Scout killers! (certainly not really!)

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.