Skip to main content

A Second Look: Lexis Advance Revisited (Part 1)

About seven months ago, I offered some first thoughts on what was then branded Lexis Advance for Law Schools BETA (see Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3). In those postings, I listed quite a few complaints I had about the product. Now that it has been released from Beta (and rebranded as simply Lexis Advance), I will re-examine the product to see whether any of my complaints have been addressed.

First, the Good News

In Part 1 of my original critique, I bemoaned the fact that, at that time, one could not perform a Focus search within a results set, a staple of not only legal research, but instruction as well. This feature has finally been added to Lexis Advance (and is now called Search within results).

In Part 2 of my original critique, I lambasted LexisNexis for claiming to have created a product specifically for law schools although that product contained no administrative materials and little secondary sources that law schools would actually use, but instead offered a grand selection of Briefs, Pleadings and Motions, Jury Instructions, Jury Verdicts and Settlements, Expert Witness Analysis, and Dockets (i.e., materials that few law professors and even fewer law students would need access to). Although I believe that the general gist of that complaint is still valid, I am pleased to report that most of the law school-needed materials have finally been added, and more is on the way. Content currently available through lexis.com but not yet available through Lexis Advance will continue to be added throughout 2012 (and possibly into 2013) until it is all available through Lexis Advance or the world ends, whichever comes first.

Also in Part 2, I denounced LexisNexis's decision to do away with most of the Connectors available in lexis.com. And let me make this clear: Some may claim that, since Lexis Advance was still in Beta, they were just testing out the new set of Connectors, but the fact is that their marketing materials clearly stated that, with Lexis Advance, they had already made the decision to do away with all Connectors except AND, OR, NOT, and W/n (inexplicably renamed NEAR/n), as these were "the new web standard" (see Faculty FAQs Q8). Thankfully, LexisNexis has done an about-face and made most (if not all) of the old lexis.com Connectors (including W/n) available in Lexis Advance. And if anyone actually grew fond of the NEAR/n Connector, it is still available along with a new Connector, ONEAR/n, which is functionally equivalent to my favorite Connector, PRE/n. These changes address what I previously identified as Unnecessary Change #1.

In Unnecessary Change #2, I discussed the change to what would be recognized as "universal characters". To summarize, the exclamation point (!) is the root expander and the asterisk (*) is the placeholder in lexis.com, but in the initial Beta of Lexis Advance, the asterisk was the root expander and the question mark (?) was the placeholder. Now that Lexis Advance is out of Beta, they have made a change. If one clicks on the Search Tips link in Lexis Advance and then clicks on Connectors and scrolls down to the bottom, the screen explains that the exclamation point has been retained as the root expander (just as in lexis.com), but that the question mark is the placeholder (just as in the Beta version of Lexis Advance). Anyone who made it through all three of my original postings might expect me to go nuts on this right now, but I'm actually okay with the current state, provided it remains this way. You see, the developers kept the Lexis Advance Beta universal characters, but also added back in the lexis.com universal characters! So now, the asterisk can be used as either a placeholder in the middle of a term or as a root expander if placed at the end!! In other words, as long as it stays this way, you only need the asterisk; it is truly a "universal" universal character!

In Part 2 of my second look at Lexis Advance, I will examine the status of my other original Lexis Advance-specific complaints and issue a call for action.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Law School Exams: A Guide to Better Grades

It’s that time of year again. Law students across the country are poring over their class notes and supplements, putting the finishing touches on their outlines, and fueling their all-night study sessions with a combination of high-carb snacks and Java Monsters. This can mean only one thing: exam time is approaching.

If you’re looking for a brief but effective guide to improving your exam performance, the O’Quinn Law Library has the book for you. Alex Schimel’s Law School Exams: A Guide to Better Grades, now in its second edition, provides a clear and concise strategy for mastering the issue-spotting exams that determine the majority of your grade in most law school classes. Schimel finished second in his class at the University Of Miami School Of Law, where he taught a wildly popular exam workshop in his 2L and 3L years, and later returned to become Associate Director of the Academic Achievement Program. The first edition of his book was written shortly after he finished law school, …

Citing to Vernon's Texas Codes Annotated: Finding Accurate Publication Dates (without touching a book)

When citing to a current statute, both the Bluebook (rule 12.3.2) and Greenbook (rule 10.1.1) require a  practitioner to provide the publication date of the bound volume in which the cited code section appears. For example, let's cite to the codified statute section that prohibits Texans from hunting or selling bats, living or dead. Note, however, you may remove or hunt a bat that is inside or on a building occupied by people. The statute is silent as to Batman, who for his own safety, best stay in Gotham City.
This section of the Texas Parks and Wildlife code is 63.101. "Protection of Bats." After checking the pocket part and finding no updates in the supplement, my citation will be:
Tex. Parks & Wild. Code Ann. § 63.101 (West ___ ). When I look at the statute in my bound volume of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, I can clearly see that the volume's publication date is 2002. But, when I find the same citation on Westlaw or LexisNexis, all I can see is that the …