3 registered
(tropsicleAfter, 2 invisible)
and 13 anonymous users online.
|
|
|
#89278 - 01/21/08 03:08 PM
Web-based versus standard texts
|
Kabbn
New Member
Registered: 01/16/08
Posts: 22
Loc: Canada
|
I have been doing a fair amount of research online and have come across a list of suggested resources put out by the recommended MT schools. I would much rather have computer-based resources than hard copies sitting on my desk - they are much faster to search through and are (or can be) updated easily.
For those who use both - are online resources sufficient for MTs now-a-days? How do the standard and recommended texts compare to free website resources?
e.g. Saunder's Pharmaceutical Word Book,
Mosby's Diagnostic and Laboratory Test Reference Book,
Understanding Pharmacology by Susan Turley,
Vera Pyle's Current Medical Terminology reference
I imagine you get used to whatever you've been using, but since I'm starting out and I prefer computer/electronic resources, I would rather go that way.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#89282 - 01/21/08 03:25 PM
Re: Web-based versus standard texts
[Re: Kabbn]
|
14tonks
Member
Registered: 10/25/01
Posts: 6295
Loc: Only 3rd world country in US
|
I absolutely prefer computer-based resources as well. Saunders now is available in digital format. I believe Vera may be now as well. OTOH, if a good reference is available only on paper, I'd buy it in paper. There's always the scan to PDF option if you want it in portable form.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#89285 - 01/21/08 03:35 PM
Re: Web-based versus standard texts
[Re: Kabbn]
|
Endiqua
Member
Registered: 04/28/05
Posts: 3468
Loc: At the computer - where else?
|
I recommend having the hardcopy references (or electronic versions of those references) on hand, ESPECIALLY for new MTs, for a few reasons.
Web pages don't generally have a proofreading or editorial staff. Granted, there are occasionally goofs in the books, but far fewer. Newer MTs simply don't have the experience to gauge a website's reliability. (However, there are a few links pages in this forum that you may find helpful that have been vetted by more experienced MTs.)
You would not BELIEVE how many times a day I run into errors from people who should know better - because they supposedly found something online. Only they didn't really find it. Sometimes they just found all the words on one webpage and sometimes the website was just plain wrong.
If you DO find something online and it's wrong - it's still going to affect your QA score. I guarantee you the editor is going to take a dim view of "Well, I found it online."
If you have it in a print reference and QA does mark you off, you have a way to appeal.
To be frank - I'm VERY good at online researching and using advanced search functions - but I would never give up my books. I would never have made it this far had I not had the books to start with.
Edited to clarify: I have absolutely no problem with electronic versions of standard industry references. I'm speaking about relying on Google searches and "unofficial" web resources as your references.
Edited by Endiqua (01/21/08 03:37 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#89490 - 01/23/08 09:42 AM
Re: Web-based versus standard texts
[Re: Endiqua]
|
ebadrake
Moderator
Registered: 10/08/03
Posts: 2104
Loc: Tavares, FL; Peachtree City, G...
|
FYI: The 2008 Saunders Pharmaceutical Word Book CD functionality is better than last year, although still not perfect in the authors' estimation. (The content is great, of course.  ) It is also updated monthly, and if I say so myself, more reliable than online resources. It can be searched by drug name, soundalike, or wild card (with the choice to search just drug names or names & indications). With herbals, street drug slang, and hazardous materials in addition to the book content, it goes far beyond a drug reference. The price has been reduced this year. The CD costs the same as the print book. http://spwb.com/
Vera Pyle's Current Medical Terminology, 11th edition, is available ONLY in electronic format. It's as good if not better than ever. It's only $24, a bargain for a reference of its kind.
http://www.hpisum.net/isapi/isapi.dll?product_detail&product_id=152&search_type=browse&cat_id=15
Ellen
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#89507 - 01/23/08 11:20 AM
Re: Web-based versus standard texts
[Re: ebadrake]
|
mt4me
Member
Registered: 07/16/04
Posts: 525
Loc: Arizona
|
Thanks for the link, Ellen. I just ordered it. I also just received yesterday my new 2008 Saunders pharmaceutical Word Book. That I prefer to have just the book and not the CD, though when I get my next one I may just do that.
Marti
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#89508 - 01/23/08 11:48 AM
Re: Web-based versus standard texts
[Re: ebadrake]
|
14tonks
Member
Registered: 10/25/01
Posts: 6295
Loc: Only 3rd world country in US
|
FYI: The 2008 Saunders Pharmaceutical Word Book CD functionality is better than last year, although still not perfect in the authors' estimation.
Y'all know I won't be happy with its functionality until it functions on Linux, and the same for Vera. 
That's my biggest beef with current digital references--they're virtually all Windows-only and require a whole library of PITA proprietary software to run them. In that respect, it may be preferable to buy in paper for those thinking of leaving M$ behind or those who want to avoid issues with reinstalling on a new computer or accessing from more than one computer, since paper can at least be cut up and scanned into a universally readable PDF format. Online resources, of course, are open to all browsers running on any OS, but you do have to be very careful to verify the accuracy and reliability of any you choose to use.
In theory, digital references should be infinitely better than paper ones. In practice, that may only be true if you create your own.
Edited by 14tonks (01/23/08 11:52 AM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Annie
|
