The methodological principles of terminology work from a linguistic and textual point of view are well established since the last two decades. There is not a unique methodological approach in the field of terminology, since what we call in this paper terminological scenarios can lead to different methodological pathways and stages –e.g. a compilation of neologisms found in newspapers, the compilation of a glossary for translation purposes, or a standardized glossary in a technical environment. The diversity of terminological scenarios also points to a variety of tools that are available for the terminologist: database management systems, text alignment tools, concordance programs, assisted and automatic translation tools, terminology detection systems, definition extraction systems, etc. A terminologist facing any given scenario must choose the appropriate set of tools. In this article, we pose a series of methodological questions about terminology work: although computing tools allow the researcher to deal with big data volumes, being more consistent, and allow him/her to validate hypothesis in a more objectively way, what other important things are left behind when is the tool, and not the researcher, who extracts evidences and presents results? We will answer to the following questions: in this process, are relevant data left behind? In which stages, specifically? Which type of data are lost and what impact do they have on the research goals? Besides data, which other aspects of the methodology can be affected? Since this research is done in a translation context, in the conclusions we will project the consequences of these reflections on the teaching-learning of terminology in translation programs.