Forty-five electronic pathfinders were selected from nine Canadian uni versity libraries to assess their degree of conformity to suggested guide lines in the existing literature about pathfinders. The content and the format of the chosen pathfinders were assessed in terms of consistency and scope. Also considered were overall readability and whether they were effectively constructed to be used as starting points for further research. The analysis revealed that the guidelines were not uniformly followed, leaving some pathfinders more complex and less useful than others. Further, it demonstrated that specific guidelines must be created for electronic pathfinders because they pose particular problems that are not addressed in the current literature about pathfinders in general. ibrary pathfinders, or subjectTo maximize their usefulness, howguides, are used in many acaever, librarians must be aware of several demic libraries to help library issues when creating and making pathusers with their initial research finders available. The format of each needs by making them aware of various resources and how they can be used.

PurposeThis paper seeks to suggest that criteria commonly used to teach undergraduates to evaluate online resources are inadequate when dealing with non‐academic items in the public domain. It aims to argue that these resources should not be ignored by librarians or undergraduates, but that they must still be evaluated. An alternative method of evaluation, based on the concepts of comparison, corroboration, motivation and purpose is to be proposed.Design/methodology/approachInadequacies of current evaluative standards are revealed, specifically in relation to the current context of how and where undergraduates conduct research. Drawing on Meola's contextual framework for evaluation, as well as the thoughts of Metzger, ways to handle the evaluation of non‐academic resources online emerge.FindingsLibrarians must consider the place of non‐academic public domain items in current undergraduate research projects, and the challenges these items pose to common guidelines for the evaluation of sources. Evaluation methods must be rethought and based on a more context‐specific approach in order to be relevant when working with non‐academic resources online.Originality/valueLibrarians who focus mainly on the “peer‐reviewed” designation or other standard evaluative criteria to help students determine what an appropriate research resource is, and who are unsure of how to guide students in their use of non‐academic public domain items, will find here suggestions to guide their thinking and inform their practices.

This exploratory study assesses the differences and similarities between how instruction librarians in Western Canada use Google and how they instruct students to use it. Survey results indicate that these librarians do use Google but can be influenced by faculty to present Google negatively to students.

This paper suggests that traditional models of liaison librarianship, which focus on liaison with academic units such as teaching departments and specific colleges within institutions, should be adapted and then expanded to include nonacademic units as well. Although the literature demonstrates that understandings of liaison work have evolved, it still contains almost no examples of how to extend library liaison beyond traditional academic units in a systematic way. As a result, existing liaison programs are too narrowly conceived, and the strengths of the liaison model are not being fully exploited. By adapting the structures in place to support traditional liaison, such programs can be expanded to include nonacademic units as well. As a result, libraries gain opportunities for broader collaboration on campus. Suggestions for identifying targets for formal nonacademic liaison are provided, as are guidelines for determining suitable liaison activities and ensuring administrative support within the library.