![]() ![]() ![]() I ordered Britannica Noet on the original pre-pub over a year ago, and experienced the disastrous initial release when it was discovered that it was Comptons Encyclopedia, not Britannica. After nearly 20 years as a Logos/Faithlife customer, I've found them to be an honorable, no-hassle company at every turn. If a reader is on the fence about this resource, I'd recommend talking to a Logos/Noet sales representative and trying it on a 30-day money-back guarantee. While I'd certainly be interested in any future updates that more closely approach the comprehensiveness of the hardcopy edition, I'm not disappointed with this product. When I originally ordered this resource, I was influenced by Britannica's reputation for comprehensive depth as well as my desire for a reliable encyclopedia that integrates fully within the Logos/Noet core engine and library. That's what I expect a good encyclopedia to do. As for textual content, all the articles I have consulted so far have been sufficient to orient me within a subject so that I can more intelligently approach primary sources. I don't have a basis for assessing the extent to which this edition is abridged (nor did I have any expectation of an unabridged set at this price), but I can say that I'm very pleased with the broad range of articles in this edition and the excellent graphics it contains (comparable to no other resource in my Logos library). Having ordered this on pre-pub when it was originally announced and receiving the Compton's Encyclopedia along the way, I was delighted today when I finally got a chance to peruse the Britannica Noet edition. People had time to wander into the library to do a bit of research, have a chat, and enjoy the serendipitous nature of flicking through the pages.With all due respect to other reviewers, I'm actually very happy with this purchase. There was a certain romance to the ritual of making the physical effort of pulling the volume from the shelves, finding a reference, enquiring further and being led from one volume to another.īut that was another era, when there was a more leisurely way of doing things. There was a time when any self-respecting news library would have copies of Who's Who, the Dictionary of National Biography and Oxford English Dictionary on its shelves. Having said all that, there is part of me that will miss having hard copies of reference books on the shelf. Find the answer in Britannica and you can give it as a source (and keep the readers' editor happy). There isn't always time to do this though. The golden rule is use Wikipedia but always check the sources. In fact a few years ago a study suggested that there were more errors in Britannica.īut there's always that question of doubt. It's a brilliant resource and despite all the scare stories about material being made up, the chances are that much of it is accurate. Anyone who says they don't use it is probably lying. ![]() Of course, other reference sources are available and, yes, I'm a great admirer of Wikipedia. The key point is that we still value Britannica's content enough to continue paying for it, year after year. ![]() Once an online subscription has been bought, you should be able to keep the download for good.įorget about the print/digital debate, though. These days, if you don't make that annual payment, you're left with little more than memories. Certain facts may date, but at least it will be a reliable source for a few years. What happens if you don't renew your online subscription? Buy the full 32-volume print version and you've got them for life. There is, however, one issue that really bothers me. Facts can be copied and pasted in seconds. The advantages are obvious – several people, often on different continents, can access the content at the same time, it's easy to search, links take you on to further information without the need to find another volume, not to mention the constant flicking of pages. I've been using the online version for a number of years. To be honest, the news that Encyclopedia Britannica will stop publishing its 32-volume print edition after 244 years, and instead focus on its digital efforts, hardly came as a surprise to librarians – at least not this one. That is the last time the Guardian thought it worth investing in a new hard-copy edition of the series. But look a little closer and it becomes clear that this is the 15th edition, the one that was published in 1989. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |