A true gold standard for keyword search incorporates both precise inclusion and defensible exclusion.
Lawyers are in denial to the point of delusion with respect to the reliability of keyword search and human review. U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge John Facciola put it best when he quipped that lawyers think they're experts at keyword search because they once found a Chinese restaurant on Google.
We trust keyword search because we understand it. We trust manual review of documents because we grossly overestimate reviewers' abilities to make sound, consistent decisions about relevance. "To err is human," the bar seems to say, "but forgive us if we'd rather not divine just how error-prone reviewers really are."
Better approaches to search are arriving as so-called "predictive coding" or "technology assisted review" products. Still, it will be years before the rank and file embraces TAR, if only because those hawking TAR tools remain resolutely uninterested in positioning the technology for use by anyone but big corporations and "white shoe" law firms. Worse, the fervor among vendors to sell something, anything that they can label predictive coding ensures that tools little different from ordinary keyword search will be given a dab of lipstick and pushed out to market as TAR tools. It's messy down in the TAR pit.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Craig Ball
No comments:
Post a Comment