next »

[danny_boy]

So what's the deal with this?  I've just discovered this and haven't yet got a handle on what it's about.

[larryc]

Google Book Search at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_book_search

You only get snippets (if that) of books that are still under copyright, but it is a treasure trove of 19th century books--fully online, searchable, even downloadable in their entirety. I use it all the time!

http://books.google.com/

[onion]

I use Google Books quite a bit, too--especially for late 19th and early 20th century sociology texts.  It can be incredibly frustrating, though, when you're reading through something and you hit the end of the selected passage.  At least then I know, though, if it's a book worth tracking down through Interlibrary Loan or Alibris or some such.

[larryc]

I am reviewing a manuscript right now and Google Books is wonderful for checking some of the footnotes to published sources.

[namazu]

I think it's a great addition to the search repertoire, and I hope they will continue to add material to it.  I am always disappointed when there's no preview available or when I only get the tantalizing "snippet view".

It was also useful for an older (early 20th century) book that I wanted to put on course reserve (which I did anyway), since I could add the Google Books link to the website, and students won't have to fight over the single copy in the library.  (I'm kidding myself there, but in theory, it's nice that they can all access it more easily if they want to do so.)

[collegekidsmom]

Google Books is great for searching "inside the book." So, if you are looking for a specific passage, or historical event, etc., you might just find it in a Google Book. Some of the scanning is bad, so if you are going to suggest use of a Google Book to a class or something, make sure to look at each page first. Google is actively digitizing out of copyright books at so many locations now that the list of full text books in there is growing daily. Adding the search capability to the increasing amount of content from great library collections is a wonderful service from Google.

[socsci]

I like the search function, too. One good thing, even in the snippet view, is that the program will show you every page on which your search term occurs, whether you can look at that page or not. This is good for tracking plagiarism.

One important point I discovered by accident is that not everything that shows up on Google Books shows up on Google Scholar. If the term is on a page that says, "Sorry, page not available for preview," this will not turn up on a Google Scholar search. So you would miss it entirely if you only used Google Scholar. Thus, my online plagiarism search suite is Alta Vista, Google Scholar, Google Books.

[donstefano]

Even though there aren't yet that many books available, some of the out of copyright books are great. I just wasted an hour reading a mid- 19th century travel guide to my (European) home country - it's hilarious!

[prytania3]

Google is 37% down.

[balancing_act]

I have used Google Books quite a lot when searching for source material for my thesis. Even when the book only offers a limited preview, often it is enough to decide whether or not to get the book from my library.

The other thing that is great about GB, is you can build your own library, so that with each book you want to refer back to, it's there for you. The library is still in Beta, and it could use some organizational help, but it's been a plus for my work.

And, it is helpful when checking for plagiarism issues too.

[dr_crankypants]

In some ways, GB is great.  However, I've also had serious problems with it.  I tend to use it for older books.  Today, I found what I thought was an out-of-print book I needed (not an obscure one, either), and the book that they had scanned was something completely different.  I've found plenty of google books that look as though they were scanned by a drunk.  Plenty of the books also are missing pages, or don't download properly.  It's great when it works.  But its sloppiness also raises questions for me, and makes me hesitant to rely on it.

[daurousseau]

I've found plenty of google books that look as though they were scanned by a drunk.

Punch-drunk, maybe. Scanning is not fun. Scanning is one step up from picking cotton.

[larryc]

I have run into these problems as well. Every Google Book page has a button where you can report illegible scans or errors. Please use it!

(Tonight I am jumping back and forth between the forum and writing a conference paper about internet sources for historians. I have Google Books open in another browser window and I am finding some wonderful obscure stuff!)

[onion]

I have run into these problems as well. Every Google Book page has a button where you can report illegible scans or errors. Please use it!

(Tonight I am jumping back and forth between the forum and writing a conference paper about internet sources for historians. I have Google Books open in another browser window and I am finding some wonderful obscure stuff!)

I worked for a different scanning/imaging project years ago.  I was required to slice the binding of the book with an exacto knife, and then feed the pages into this big scary jumbo scanner (which may account for some of the screwed-up pages).  When I was finished, I was required to THROW THE BOOK IN THE TRASH.  I'm sorry for screaming, but as a historian, it absolutely killed me to do that.

The mean librarian explained to me that this was the wave of the future and that the library couldn't physically store all of these books while acquiring new ones, etc etc.  But every time I see a munked up page on GB or something similar, I can't help but think I was a little bit more right than the librarian.  Then again, I take in stray books the way others rescue animals. 

[namazu]

I worked for a different scanning/imaging project years ago.  I was required to slice the binding of the book with an exacto knife, and then feed the pages into this big scary jumbo scanner (which may account for some of the screwed-up pages).  When I was finished, I was required to THROW THE BOOK IN THE TRASH.  I'm sorry for screaming, but as a historian, it absolutely killed me to do that.

The mean librarian explained to me that this was the wave of the future and that the library couldn't physically store all of these books while acquiring new ones, etc etc.  But every time I see a munked up page on GB or something similar, I can't help but think I was a little bit more right than the librarian.  Then again, I take in stray books the way others rescue animals. 

Couldn't they have sold the unbound books?

Is there a Noah's Ark of a book repository somewhere, taking in one or two of a kind, for posterity?  Does the Library of Congress do that?

I love the accessibility of information in the digital age, but I agree with you that there are some things an electronic copy, no matter how good, cannot (currently) capture.  Then again, I am intrigued by such things as book binding and paper, and love to touch stuff in stores. 

I also worry about a massive loss of information should there be insufficient redundancy in the backup systems, or if they should be subject to some common catastrophe.       

Incidentally, the NYPL has a nice selection of scanned books online, as well (some in conjunction with Google).  They're usually pretty good (with a few errors), and include scans of the front an back cover and miscellaneous pages.

As for the OCR limitations, I find that's true with Proquest searches of old newspapers as well.  Lots and lots of poor-quality scans or typefaces that confuse the computer.  But it's still a ton better than having to look through individual microfilms, especially if one is doing "casual" research.