[Web4lib] Google Allows Downloads of out-of-copyright Books

[Jim Campbell]

Note that Google does in fact have a feedback form and specifically asks for
comments on accuracy. I've sent in comments on metadata, full view
availability, and bad scans. You get an automated response, but sometimes
you also get a personal response to say the message has been sent on.  So
far that's been true only of metadata comments; I'm hoping that doesn't mean
the other comments have been ignored.

- Jim Campbell
Campbell at Virginia.edu
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org 
> [mailto:web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org] On Behalf Of K.G. Schneider
> Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 6:38 PM
> To: web4lib at webjunction.org
> Subject: RE: [Web4lib] Google Allows Downloads of 
> out-of-copyright Books
> 
> > I suspect that it's the correcting, rather than finding 
> errors, that 
> > is onerous. I, too, was thinking of having somewhere that 
> people could 
> > note which books have errors (I just downloaded one that I 
> wanted and 
> > found pages missing -- very disappointing). Now I think we 
> should have 
> > a place where people can report books that appear to be 
> good scans so 
> > that other libraries can concentrate on the books that 
> AREN'T on that 
> > list. In the end, though, it's really only economical to do 
> QC as part 
> > of the scanning process, when you have the book and the scanning 
> > equipment and the operators right there. Like most other 
> activities, 
> > clean up after the fact is the least desirable way to go about it.
> > 
> > kc
> > 
> > Patricia F Anderson wrote:
> > > Perhaps take a folksonomy approach -- have a system by 
> which patrons 
> > > can report or recommend correction of errors they discover. A 
> > > wikipedia model, perhaps. Just brainstorming, but it 
> could take the 
> > > burden of correction off the local coders.
> 
> Actually both approaches are good... clean up as you go 
> along, but enable the ability to comment on sites (negative, 
> positive, evaluative, etc.). The latter is not only good 
> 2.0-ish practice, but also could provide valuable information 
> on problems users find that are not necessarily evident to 
> providers (and also enables in the networked environment the 
> well-respected practice of conversing through marginalia... 
> see the NYT this past weekend, "John Adams Talks to His Books"). 
> 
> Karen G. Schneider
> kgs at bluehighways.com 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4lib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
>