Skip to main content

New is Not Always Better -- It's Just New: Legislative Research edition

By


It would appear that the federal government no longer loves Thomas Jefferson. That is the only conclusion I can make as a result of the roll-out of the beta version of Congress.gov, the legislative web site created to replace Thomas.loc.gov, the Library of Congress’ legislative web site. 

As with everything new, Congress.gov bills itself as an improvement over Thomas.loc.gov, but not for the right reasons.  The first reason is that the new platform allows, “Simultaneously search all content across all available years.” Searching across all content for all years is a recipe for bringing back too many results and confusing the researcher. The preferred strategy is to search as narrowly as possible and expand out from there. The other improvement is that the new design will improve searching on mobile devices. I see two problems here; 1)Is this a real selling point? And 2) Why are you searching legislation on a mobile device? I can imagine you would do it if you worked on Capital Hill, and maybe if you are a lobbyist, but do normal people do this? I also notice a focus on Congressional member profiles.  While this is nice, the emphasis of the site should be on the work of Congress, not the Congress-critters themselves. I can go to several other sources, including, dare I say, Wikipedia, if I want to learn more about a current or former member of Congress, and get more complete coverage (the current site has partial coverage back to 1947).

I wouldn’t be doing my job if I didn’t comment on the site itself. The lay-out has improved with tabs replacing the plain links on Thomas.  A greater emphasis seems to be placed on how Congress works and explaining the legislative process to the regular citizen since a link is devoted to the legislative process with a video, but sad to say, but neither Morgan Freeman nor James Earl Jones narrate.  

This celebratory blog post from the Washington Post is quick to mock the old Thomas site, but doesn’t say why the new site is better, aside from its availability on mobile devices and the fact that  “the Congressional leadership has seen the site and has “been very supportive” of its development.” So if members of Congress are supportive it must be good?  The endorsement of members of Congress will not make me switch to the new site, that is, until Thomas.loc.gov is taken down.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Amazing, but True, Deportation Story of Carlos Marcello

By
Earlier this week, the University of Houston Law Center was fortunate to have as its guest Professor Daniel Kanstroom of Boston College of Law. An expert in immigration law, he is the Director of the International Human Rights Program, and he both founded and directs the Boston College Immigration and Asylum Clinic. Speaking as the guest of the Houston Journal of International Law’s annual Fall Lecture Series, Professor Kanstroom discussed issues raised in his new book, Aftermath: Deportation Law and the New American Diaspora . Professor Michael Olivas introduced Professor Kanstroom to the audience, and mentioned the fascinating tale of Carlos Marcello, which Professor Kanstroom wrote about in his chapter “The Long, Complex, and Futile Deportation Saga of Carlos Marcello,” in Immigration Stories , a collection of narratives about leading immigration law cases. My interest piqued, I read and was amazed by Kanstroom’s description of one of the most interesting figures in American le
1 comment
Read more

C-SPAN Video Archive Now Online

By
Legislative researchers and politics fans take note. C-SPAN recently completed a digitization project placing the entirety of its video collection online. The archives record all three C-SPAN networks seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day. The videos are available at no cost for historical, educational, research, and archival uses. The database includes over 160,000 hours of video recorded since 1987 and the programs are indexed by subject, speaker names, titles, affiliations, sponsors, committees, categories, formats, policy groups, keywords, and locations. The most recent, most watched, and most shared videos are highlighted on the main page. To start watching, visit the C-SPAN Video Library and use the search function at the top of the page.
Post a Comment
Read more

Texas Subsequent History Table Ceases Publication

By
This week, Thomson Reuters notified subscribers that publication of the Texas Subsequent History Table will be discontinued and no further updates will be produced, due to “insufficient market interest.” Practitioners have been extracting writ (and since 1997, petition) history from the tables since their initial publication in 1917 as The Complete Texas Writs of Error Table . The tables, later published by West, have been used for nearly a century to determine how the Texas Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals disposed of an appeal from an intermediate appellate court. The purpose of adding this notation to citations is to indicate the effect of the Texas Supreme Court’s action on the weight of authority of the Court of Appeals’ opinion.  For example, practitioners may prefer to use as authority a case that the Texas Supreme Court has determined is correct both in result and legal principles applied (petition refused), rather than one that simply presents no error that requires
Post a Comment
Read more