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

[Karen Coyle]

Jim, I sent in a comment about a particularly egregious problem -- two 
books that are intermixed, sometimes a page from one, sometimes a page 
from another. (FYI - Ruskin's Stones of Venice and a guidebook to 
Sweden). I checked a few weeks later and the problem is still there. 
What I think is significant about this one is that it is a coding 
problem, not a scanning problem. If a page is missing from a scanned 
book, I highly doubt that they will pull that book again and re-scan it. 
However, it would be good to tag that copy as "incomplete" in the hopes 
that the book will also be scanned from another collection, this time 
correctly.

kc

Jim Campbell wrote:
> 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/
>>
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4lib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
>
>
>   

-- 
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
kcoyle at kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------