<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google Books: Champagne or Sour Grapes?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.dancohen.org/2007/08/16/google-books-champagne-or-sour-grapes/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.dancohen.org/2007/08/16/google-books-champagne-or-sour-grapes/</link>
	<description>Covering the intersection of digital technology and research, teaching, and learning in the humanities, including search, data mining, website development and design, and programming.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 20:44:19 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Robert Moore</title>
		<link>http://www.dancohen.org/2007/08/16/google-books-champagne-or-sour-grapes/#comment-1766</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Moore</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2008 18:23:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dancohen.org/2007/08/16/google-books-champagne-or-sour-grapes/#comment-1766</guid>
		<description>Hello Dr. Cohen,

Just a quick comment regarding Google Books. Their project is indeed ambitious and, ultimately will result in some messy work. However, I don't know that they are the ones to blame when it comes to quality in scans. In my own experience in reviewing some of these works (especially Civil War unit histories from the late nineteenth and early twentieth century), I have found that scans are being done by libraries (Harvard comes to mind in at least two instances). The only time that Google does the scanning is when somebody wants their book in Google Books specifically to be presented as a "preview." In that case, the author either scans their own book and sends in the scans or sends Google a copy of the book. When the book is sent to Google, they dismantle it in order to make higher quality scans. 

Best,

Robert Moore
 for that, m, I do know that</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello Dr. Cohen,</p>
<p>Just a quick comment regarding Google Books. Their project is indeed ambitious and, ultimately will result in some messy work. However, I don&#8217;t know that they are the ones to blame when it comes to quality in scans. In my own experience in reviewing some of these works (especially Civil War unit histories from the late nineteenth and early twentieth century), I have found that scans are being done by libraries (Harvard comes to mind in at least two instances). The only time that Google does the scanning is when somebody wants their book in Google Books specifically to be presented as a &#8220;preview.&#8221; In that case, the author either scans their own book and sends in the scans or sends Google a copy of the book. When the book is sent to Google, they dismantle it in order to make higher quality scans. </p>
<p>Best,</p>
<p>Robert Moore<br />
 for that, m, I do know that</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan Cohen&#8217;s Digital Humanities Blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Google Book Search Begins Adding Quality Control Measures</title>
		<link>http://www.dancohen.org/2007/08/16/google-books-champagne-or-sour-grapes/#comment-1700</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan Cohen&#8217;s Digital Humanities Blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Google Book Search Begins Adding Quality Control Measures</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:56:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dancohen.org/2007/08/16/google-books-champagne-or-sour-grapes/#comment-1700</guid>
		<description>[...] As predicted in this space six months ago, Google has added the ability for users to report missing or poorly scanned pages in their Book Search. (From my post &#8220;Google Books: Champagne or Sour Grapes?&#8220;: &#8220;Just as they have recently added commentary to Google News, they could have users flag problematic pages.&#8221;) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] As predicted in this space six months ago, Google has added the ability for users to report missing or poorly scanned pages in their Book Search. (From my post &#8220;Google Books: Champagne or Sour Grapes?&#8220;: &#8220;Just as they have recently added commentary to Google News, they could have users flag problematic pages.&#8221;) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tapera &#187; Digital Humanidades en el 2007 [parte 2]</title>
		<link>http://www.dancohen.org/2007/08/16/google-books-champagne-or-sour-grapes/#comment-1565</link>
		<dc:creator>Tapera &#187; Digital Humanidades en el 2007 [parte 2]</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:54:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dancohen.org/2007/08/16/google-books-champagne-or-sour-grapes/#comment-1565</guid>
		<description>[...] problemas en la calidad del escaneo y en los metadata. Sin embargo, tal como Dan Cohen argumenta en &#8220;Google Books: Champagne or Sour Grapes?&#8221;, Google está operando con un defendible equilibrio entre rapidez, digitalización masiva y control [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] problemas en la calidad del escaneo y en los metadata. Sin embargo, tal como Dan Cohen argumenta en &#8220;Google Books: Champagne or Sour Grapes?&#8221;, Google está operando con un defendible equilibrio entre rapidez, digitalización masiva y control [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Digital Humanities in 2007 [Part 3 of 3] &#171; Digital Scholarship in the Humanities</title>
		<link>http://www.dancohen.org/2007/08/16/google-books-champagne-or-sour-grapes/#comment-1500</link>
		<dc:creator>Digital Humanities in 2007 [Part 3 of 3] &#171; Digital Scholarship in the Humanities</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:54:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dancohen.org/2007/08/16/google-books-champagne-or-sour-grapes/#comment-1500</guid>
		<description>[...] Google Books: Champagne or Sour Grapes?  [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Google Books: Champagne or Sour Grapes?  [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Digital Humanities in 2007 [Part 2 of 3] &#171; Digital Scholarship in the Humanities</title>
		<link>http://www.dancohen.org/2007/08/16/google-books-champagne-or-sour-grapes/#comment-1481</link>
		<dc:creator>Digital Humanities in 2007 [Part 2 of 3] &#171; Digital Scholarship in the Humanities</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2008 00:54:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dancohen.org/2007/08/16/google-books-champagne-or-sour-grapes/#comment-1481</guid>
		<description>[...] Shandy to illustrate problems in scanning quality and metadata. But, as Dan Cohen argues in Google Books: Champagne or Sour Grapes?, Google is making a defensible trade-off between rapid, mass digitization and quality control; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Shandy to illustrate problems in scanning quality and metadata. But, as Dan Cohen argues in Google Books: Champagne or Sour Grapes?, Google is making a defensible trade-off between rapid, mass digitization and quality control; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan Cohen&#8217;s Digital Humanities Blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; More Perspectives on Google Books</title>
		<link>http://www.dancohen.org/2007/08/16/google-books-champagne-or-sour-grapes/#comment-1060</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan Cohen&#8217;s Digital Humanities Blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; More Perspectives on Google Books</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:42:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dancohen.org/2007/08/16/google-books-champagne-or-sour-grapes/#comment-1060</guid>
		<description>[...] [with OpenSocial and the Open Handset Alliance], why not join the  Open Content Alliance?&#8221; As I&#8217;ve noted in this space, openness is the preeminent question about Google Books, rather than questions of scan or search [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] [with OpenSocial and the Open Handset Alliance], why not join the  Open Content Alliance?&#8221; As I&#8217;ve noted in this space, openness is the preeminent question about Google Books, rather than questions of scan or search [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan Cohen&#8217;s Digital Humanities Blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Google Books: Is It Good for History?</title>
		<link>http://www.dancohen.org/2007/08/16/google-books-champagne-or-sour-grapes/#comment-891</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan Cohen&#8217;s Digital Humanities Blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Google Books: Is It Good for History?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:41:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dancohen.org/2007/08/16/google-books-champagne-or-sour-grapes/#comment-891</guid>
		<description>[...] readers of this blog know of my aversion to jeremiads about Google, but Rob&#8217;s piece is well-reasoned and I agree with much of what he [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] readers of this blog know of my aversion to jeremiads about Google, but Rob&#8217;s piece is well-reasoned and I agree with much of what he [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan Cohen&#8217;s Digital Humanities Blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Debating Paul Duguid&#8217;s Google Books Lament</title>
		<link>http://www.dancohen.org/2007/08/16/google-books-champagne-or-sour-grapes/#comment-196</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan Cohen&#8217;s Digital Humanities Blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Debating Paul Duguid&#8217;s Google Books Lament</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2007 19:15:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dancohen.org/2007/08/16/google-books-champagne-or-sour-grapes/#comment-196</guid>
		<description>[...] Books, and Patrick Leary, author of &#8220;Googling the Victorians.&#8221; I&#8217;m sticking with my original negative opinion of the article, which Leary agrees completely [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Books, and Patrick Leary, author of &#8220;Googling the Victorians.&#8221; I&#8217;m sticking with my original negative opinion of the article, which Leary agrees completely [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Television Archiving &#187; Blog Archive &#187; links for 2007-08-16</title>
		<link>http://www.dancohen.org/2007/08/16/google-books-champagne-or-sour-grapes/#comment-87</link>
		<dc:creator>Television Archiving &#187; Blog Archive &#187; links for 2007-08-16</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:28:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dancohen.org/2007/08/16/google-books-champagne-or-sour-grapes/#comment-87</guid>
		<description>[...] Dan Cohen’s Digital Humanities Blog » Google Books: Champagne or Sour Grapes? (tags: google) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Dan Cohen’s Digital Humanities Blog » Google Books: Champagne or Sour Grapes? (tags: google) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alexis</title>
		<link>http://www.dancohen.org/2007/08/16/google-books-champagne-or-sour-grapes/#comment-86</link>
		<dc:creator>Alexis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:50:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dancohen.org/2007/08/16/google-books-champagne-or-sour-grapes/#comment-86</guid>
		<description>Oy, everyone wants to be the first-class member, don't they?  Google wants to be head honcho, so they locks their stacks down.  The librarians want to remain the gatekeepers, so they grapple to keep the books "in their place" (the library, no doubt).

Maybe the real issue is that the notion of gatekeeper, owner, first-class member needs to be ditched in favor of more useful, functioning, and robust models.  Think open-source.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oy, everyone wants to be the first-class member, don&#8217;t they?  Google wants to be head honcho, so they locks their stacks down.  The librarians want to remain the gatekeepers, so they grapple to keep the books &#8220;in their place&#8221; (the library, no doubt).</p>
<p>Maybe the real issue is that the notion of gatekeeper, owner, first-class member needs to be ditched in favor of more useful, functioning, and robust models.  Think open-source.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
