I used the DIALOG system extensively for a while.  I think its best,
and possibly only, use is as a grazing device for faculty
    searching for a new sponsor, new research topic, etc.  I
    never believe anything I read from databases or printed and
    bound directories.  It's a given that any information that
    is in these types of collections is from 9 to 18 months old
    at publication, THEN we keep them on a shelf for while.
    They are useful as a beginning search tool, butfor the ral
    skinny I go to the weekly newsletters and the sponsors
    themselves.
    I am currently ticking off my researchers by refusing to
    call the sponsors for them.  My experience is that sponsors
    see us (in preaward) as clerkish intermediariesand that
    their preference is to talk with the researcher, who can
    discuss technical issues, etc.  How do you fell about that?
    Spanky
> Here's one for users of the Grants database online through Dialog or its
> counterpart Dialog onDisc for Grants.
>
> Oryx Press supplies the data for these products, and we at Indiana University
> buy an ascii version of their data that we put onto our Gopher Server.  (Sorry
> access is limited to IU only.)
>
> I'm curious as to other people's satisfaction with the quality of the
> information from these sources.  For example, deadlines for NIH programs are
> very often wrong, and one NIH program had an unexplainable geographic
> restriction of New Hampshire.  This same NIH program (a FIRST award from the
> National Cancer Institute) was listed as a student financial aid program.
>
> Their geographic restrictions in general confound me to the point where I
> ignore the information they provide.
>
> What do others think about the quality of these products?
>
> -Marcia Zuzolo