My password to the private beta for WestlawNext is set to expire tonight, but before it does, I have some final thoughts on the platform for you to consider.
First, the browser. If you are running IE6, you will need to upgrade to IE8. If you are running IE7, you’ll get by, but there are definitely a few glitches I’ve experienced, so you’ll probably want to upgrade. Best performance currently is with Firefox, but IE8 runs a close second. Last week we were told that Google Chrome is the most stable browser for WestlawNext, but that won’t be rolled out until February 18th. For most of you, however, that won’t matter because you won’t see this thing until much later anyway. But why is this important? It’s just another cost to adopting the platform. If you need to upgrade, then you just have to factor in the IT time to do so. I’m still surprised at the number of firms running ancient-ass browsers. Really folks? Do you not care about online productivity?
Second, secondary sources. I started thinking about the fact that WestlawNext gives you access to over 6,000 secondary sources. And while that is a big number, it’s nothing compared to the primary source material made available, which is to say, search for secondary sources probably could be a lot better if it was a stand alone product. I suspect that relevancy in secondary sources could be much better if all a user was doing was searching those databases with WestSearch. I’m actually thinking there should be a two-step portal, where WestlawNext tries to help you find an explanation to your question first before sending you on to discover the answer for yourself through primary material. This first portal could also be optimized for reading secondary sources that is different than how we try to consume primary data.
Third, WestlawNext SEO. I didn’t think of this, I think Greg Lambert did. But after playing with the system, there are some inevitable questions as to whether the WestSearch algorithm could be gamed by users. If WestSearch is updated weekly with customer log information, as was indicated by the design team, then there must be some sort of potential for increasing the rankings of certain cases over others. Why would this be important? Well, I think Greg posited that if you found a case more favorable to you on a point of law, you might be able to increase its relevancy (for other users looking for the same or similar information) by creating artificial “meaningful relationships” (see my last post on this topic), such as, placing the case in your folders, printing, etc. You could actually encourage the entire firm to do it as a matter of practice. I’m not sure it would work, but it’s certainly something worth considering as more consumer-user data is incorporated into the search algorithm. Lastly, there’s also the problem of law students to consider. Once this platform is rolled out academically, I think it is fair to ask whether law students’ log data will be added to the algorithm mix. Honestly, I think they could screw it up faster than the concerted effort of a few lawyers.
Fourth, social tools. I’ve stared at this platform, and while I know that WestlawNext will be able to let users “vote” and “make comments,” that functionality appears to be specifically limited to the user communicating with Thomson Reuters Legal (TRL) through the “Next” link off the home page. It’s basically a way for you to tell TRL what you’d like to see in later releases. But that is it. An entire community of lawyers across the country, or in the same state, or same city, logged in at the same time, cannot communicate with each other, at all, other than through shared folders and sticky notes. I’m not belittling those advancements, which are important. I’m just puzzled why a company that wants to increase engagement for their site doesn’t find a way to leverage something no one else has, namely, the brain power of tens of thousands concurrent users online at any given moment. If you could connect to someone or more than one person reading the same case you were, would you? Would you ask, What does this passage mean to you? What if your identity was kept anonymous, or just showed Jill, Houston, Texas? Could we—can we—have meaningful conversations about the law in real time, or is it a waste of that precious resource? What has Twitter, or Google Wave for that matter, taught us about our capabilities for social?
Finally, search routine. Like most legal researchers, I’m a Boolean user. So, it is hard for me to abandon it. But I was committed to giving WestSearch the benefit of the doubt, so I always defaulted to the standard “plain language search.” Most of the time I was given relevant results, and my initial research expectations were met. However, I wasn’t satisfied I had gotten everything. So I would scan the first 10 to 15 entries, perhaps viewing 8 of those, and then narrow my results using Boolean in “Search within results,” probably two or three times with different queries. Only then would I be satisfied with what I’d found. This is important because it changes the value equation. I suspect that most users will be like me and feel compelled to narrow the results using Boolean. Now, I know that filtering (e.g., court, published or unpublished opinion, date range) is not an extra QuickView charge, but I don’t know about “Search within results.” You should probably ask your rep because if it does cost extra, then the value proposition for the service is also changed.
[Image (cc) by Kaptain Kobold]
You must log in to post a comment.