Comments on: Can Google inherit quality? http://library.duke.edu/blogs/scholcomm/2007/08/14/duguid/ Duke's source for advice and information about copyright and publication issues Tue, 17 Nov 2009 04:32:11 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Leela Yellesetty http://library.duke.edu/blogs/scholcomm/2007/08/14/duguid/comment-page-1/#comment-14871 Leela Yellesetty Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:29:53 +0000 http://library.duke.edu/blogs/scholcomm/2007/08/14/duguid/#comment-14871 A previous post noted, "Google is the access point for the content, but not the superior mode for viewing the content itself." True enough, but surely the content itself affects the access. If there are large sections of text which are unreadible by ordinary viewers, then they are probably unreadable by Google's search algorhythm-- and therefore cannot be access points. A previous post noted, “Google is the access point for the content, but not the superior mode for viewing the content itself.” True enough, but surely the content itself affects the access. If there are large sections of text which are unreadible by ordinary viewers, then they are probably unreadable by Google’s search algorhythm– and therefore cannot be access points.

]]> By: Scholarly Communications @ Duke » Second thoughts http://library.duke.edu/blogs/scholcomm/2007/08/14/duguid/comment-page-1/#comment-7241 Scholarly Communications @ Duke » Second thoughts Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:07:24 +0000 http://library.duke.edu/blogs/scholcomm/2007/08/14/duguid/#comment-7241 [...] project has gotten inordinate praise in some quarters, as well as its share of criticism (see here, for my contribution to the latter). But Grafton’s article is neither wholly critical nor [...] [...] project has gotten inordinate praise in some quarters, as well as its share of criticism (see here, for my contribution to the latter). But Grafton’s article is neither wholly critical nor [...]

]]> By: Joline http://library.duke.edu/blogs/scholcomm/2007/08/14/duguid/comment-page-1/#comment-3841 Joline Thu, 06 Sep 2007 13:57:22 +0000 http://library.duke.edu/blogs/scholcomm/2007/08/14/duguid/#comment-3841 I have just spend some time with Google Books in preparation for a class presentation, and I agree with Duguid regarding the clarity of the images. Many, even from recent works, were fuzzy and somewhat difficult to read. Google is definitely taking the "bigger is better" approach, as opposed to the Open Content Alliance, whose digital images are much crisper and who have provided useful help rather than "cool" features like Google's "popular passages." If 200 books include the same quotation from James Madison, does that mean I should put it in my paper, too? I have just spend some time with Google Books in preparation for a class presentation, and I agree with Duguid regarding the clarity of the images. Many, even from recent works, were fuzzy and somewhat difficult to read. Google is definitely taking the “bigger is better” approach, as opposed to the Open Content Alliance, whose digital images are much crisper and who have provided useful help rather than “cool” features like Google’s “popular passages.” If 200 books include the same quotation from James Madison, does that mean I should put it in my paper, too?

]]> By: aisha http://library.duke.edu/blogs/scholcomm/2007/08/14/duguid/comment-page-1/#comment-3182 aisha Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:29:51 +0000 http://library.duke.edu/blogs/scholcomm/2007/08/14/duguid/#comment-3182 "It is true that the real value of the Google Books Project is not so much to find reading matter for people as to direct them to which books are most likely to be of help or interest to them." Kevin, I agree with you completely. Google is the access point for the content, but not the superior mode for viewing the content itself. This may change over time as readers may choose convenient access over complete and contextual content. Google is becoming the Super Catalog, pulling the pieces together in one place, taking us beyond the citation and the table of contents, but for now we (libraries) still hold the content. For now... “It is true that the real value of the Google Books Project is not so much to find reading matter for people as to direct them to which books are most likely to be of help or interest to them.”

Kevin, I agree with you completely. Google is the access point for the content, but not the superior mode for viewing the content itself. This may change over time as readers may choose convenient access over complete and contextual content.

Google is becoming the Super Catalog, pulling the pieces together in one place, taking us beyond the citation and the table of contents, but for now we (libraries) still hold the content. For now…

]]>