![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Is there a reference template for Links to Google Book pages?-- Skyfiler 18:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
When relevant to a user's keyword search, up to three results from the Google Book Search index are displayed above search results in the Google Web Search service (google.com).
Not for me. I get three items from Google News, sometimes, but not from Google Book Search. If preferences need to be set for this, or something, maybe the article should say so. qp10qp 01:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I just checked it out, and it's a rather error-ridden database. For example, when searching there's many instances when the scanner interpeted a printed "P" as an "F". However, I'm not really sure where to put that in this article, or even if I should, and if I should, if I should put that here or perhaps in the "book scanning" or "Optical character recognition" articles. Kevin 23:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The following sentence seemed a bit odd/misleading:
As this is (currently) the article's first mention of microsoft, it seems to imply that microsoft and google may be working together on scanning books, or that microsoft might have special knowledge on how many books google has scanned. The footnote is to an article called "Microsoft starts online library in challenge to Google Books", which clears things up a bit (nothing else in the article hints that this might be the case).-- Eloil 18:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Moved this paragraph from the article
"Nothing is done" is a very strong criticism to be given without any citation. The paragraph is/was the first mention of errors or omissions and does not, I suspect, fairly describe the feedback system as it is described further in the article. Asserting that there is not any "effective" mechanism sounds like original research/complaining to me. Citations of the problem, and citations on the alleged inefficacy of Google's feedback process, please.
The removed paragraph is accurate, and should be restored to the article. There is not "any effective mechanism in place for readers to be able to report errors or missing pages; or to obtain the missing words or pages and be able to read and comprehend the work being read." Most, perhaps all, of the old (pre-1923) technical books have had many or all of their images deleted from the book. Google is completely unresponsive to bug reports, and I fear that libraries will dispose of the physical books, working under the false belief that Google has actually preserved digital copies of these books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.82.231 ( talk) 00:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the fourth reference. I'm pretty sure it's a person's hand. It just looks strange because the finger tips are covered in a rubber which helps them turn the pages. If you search for google books errors in google images you'll see many more examples eg. http://libertarian-labyrinth.org/working/withthisring.jpg
Date | Explanation | Location | File/Case number |
---|---|---|---|
September 20, 2005 | The Authors Guild et. al. v. Google. [1] | United States District Court Southern District of New York | S.D. N.Y. Case No. 05-CV-8136-JES |
September 26, 2006 | Google files a notice that it intends to subpoena Yahoo! Inc.; Microsoft Corporation; the Association of American of Publishers, Inc.; Random House, Inc.; Holtzbrinck Publishers, LLC; and HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.
[2]
Notice also states: Class Action complaint, Jury trial requested. |
United States District Court Southern District of New York | . |
November 20, 2006 | Yahoo responds to Google's Subpoena. [3] | United States District Court Northern District of California | . |
October 20, 2006 | Amazon.com, Inc. objects to Google, Inc.'s subpoena which sought documents relating to the Amazon Book Project. [4] | Washington Western District Court | . |
. | . | . | . |
Travb ( talk) 00:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems to be that the University of Mysore partnership information is incorrect. Google does not list them in their partners page, and until it appears there, it should not be listed here. Bwwm 21:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I have removed Mysore (again). They are not listed on the partners page. See Partners Bwwm ( talk) 01:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey. I'm of the opinion that this source, which is linked in the article, shows that Mysore is working with Google on this project. It says "the new partnership with Mysore", so that seems pretty cut and dry for me. Hope this helps; let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
How to upload a document to Google Book for full view/limited preview? Anwar ( talk) 15:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Image:Digitized by Google-20060530.jpg that was removed by a shared IP address without comment this spring is restored; nicer to show that real people scan all these books, whether by hand or by machine. — SusanLesch ( talk) 21:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The timeline needs to be rewritten so that tense is kept constant. Thunderkatz Ho! 02:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books.google.com#Number_scanned Upon reading the following line "Google has said that they are scanning more than 3,000 books per day, a rate that translates into more than 1 million annually." and checking out the source, I am incapable of finding any information on the number of books scanned per day. It says "Google has already digitized one million volumes.", not sure if it says anything about doing it annually though. Can somebody have a look and perhaps confirm this? Just to get a second opinion... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.88.226.203 ( talk) 12:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Interesting article here. Skomorokh 15:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Is it known which OCR software is used here? -- Traut ( talk) 14:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello everyone, i understand the enthusiam that one can find the book-text in this instant easy accesible way. BUT somehow i got kind of nervous about copyright. Is it "fair" that everyone can find (read and use) text itself, for example a very specific medicine-book, writen to study ecography/ultrasonic ... without paying it? I know it sounds odd but, i'm also wandering why nowbody until now in this discussion has mentioned the point. (hey,google is way to big, dont you think? ) Tim
This article should be updated to reflect the name change to Google Books; it is no longer Google Book Search, and it is no longer in beta. Logan Talk Contributions 16:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
but why USA can't get sue them? -- 94.70.88.202 ( talk) 01:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The article stated:
“As of late 2008, the University of Texas has withdrawn from continuing to help the digitization project”
There is no source for this claim in the article and I have contradictory information from an official Google Books Blog entry, dated February 10, 2010:
“Today, we are proud to announce the completion of our digitization project with the University of Texas Libraries and the inclusion of over 500,000 unique volumes into the Google Books index.”
http://booksearch.blogspot.com/2010/02/sharing-latin-american-works-from.html
Therefore I deleted the sentence. If I got something wrong I´d like to apologize and ask for a source for this claim.-- RKoenig ( talk) 14:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The word decided in the sentence Results from Google Book Search show up in both general web search at google.com and through the decided Google Books site doesn't make sense to me. Since I can't determine the intent of the sentence, I don't feel comfortable fixing it. Catchoo ( talk) 15:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. An article reference claims: "Of the seven million books Google has scanned, one million are in full preview mode as part of formal publisher agreements. Another one million are public domain works." Is there available an index for the public domain books? emijrp ( talk) 16:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I find it interesting that one of the older successful digitization schemes, Project Gutenberg, is completely ignored, even as a comparison reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.173.221.81 ( talk) 21:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Correction to the above: I had expected to find Project Gutenberg noted early in the article, but did not find it directly referenced in the main article page. I later found a reference buried under See Also: List of Digital Library projects. I still think Project Gutenberg should be explicitly mentioned at least in passing as a pivotal non-profit predecessor somewhere near the -Competetors- area, because of the similar intended scope of the two projects... Google just had more money to throw at the effort, besides using it as a commercial venture with advertising.
Google Books is not a reliable long term site for linking citations on Wikipeida: Google makes no promise it will maintain the archive in current format; URL formats may change; books may switch from free to pay, since publishers re-publish old titles and Google removes them as free; Google may go out of business or be acquired; Google may determine books are no longer profitable and cancel or change the service.
Yet, Google is a huge resource, what is one to do? There are two solutions: Internet Archive and HathiTrust. Both these sites mirror books from Google, plus have additional books they have scanned independently. In fact both these sites are larger than Google, in terms of Public Domain titles. Most people think of Google Books is the biggest/best, but it's really a poor quality also-ran whose future is uncertain. Probably the best site for long-term linking is HathiTrust because its run and maintained by the same University libraries where Google scanned the books originally. They have stated the links will be permanent and unchanging for 1000 years (or however long these Universities are in existence). If your serious about citations to scanned books that will last, it's the one to use. Green Cardamom ( talk) 20:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The Google Books user experience is in short unsatisfactory. For one, whether pages are turned by hand or by robot (see section "Robotic Page Turner" above), errors are too much that they should be done purposedly. Any consensus on that?
Two, most pages are monochrome.
Three, Google doesn’t provide access to non copyright material on its site for no stated reason!
In short, they should leave sponsoring for a future serious provider. -- Connection ( talk) 10:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
It used to be possible to filter searches for Full Preview. This is no longer the case. Perhaps this should be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.206.251 ( talk) 05:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Google Books. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Google Books. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Google Books. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/2006/aug09.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/2006/aug09.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Google Books. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://version1.europeana.eu/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)