This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Google Books article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | A news item involving Google Books was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 19 December 2009. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
All talk pages have been moved to Talk:Google Books/Archive 1. Anarchyte ( talk) 08:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I am curious that there is no discussion of commercial aspects of the operation at this time. Google is a for-profit operation and presumably either derives, or intends to derive in the future, a commercial return on its investment either through subscription services, advertising revenue or other means. Can someone who knows more about this aspect myself maybe introduce a relevant section to the page? Regards - Tony Tony 1212 ( talk) 20:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I have just boldly merged Google Books Library Project into this article. To be fair, the Library Project is the essence of Google Books. The other part of it, Partner Program, is associated with just a single paragraph of content. Which means there is a huge scope commonness between the two articles. They largely cover the same topic. This is exemplified as until now, half of the criticism (copyright issues) was predominantly covered at Google Books whereas the other half (academic criticism) was covered at Google Books Library Project. It makes sense to have a single consolidated article rather than two articles on the same subject. 103.6.159.81 ( talk) 10:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Under Copyright infringement, fair use and related issues the following paragraphs have numerous spelling and other issues.
Cheers. ◦◦derekbd ◦◦my talk◦◦ 21:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Where did most of the site's content? Why did it informally or secretly removed? Now, most of this article can be washed, as the site is almost empty place.-- 95.24.27.53 ( talk) 14:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Making a tentative list of improvements to be made to the article:
223.227.98.116 ( talk) 09:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
[Errors] became obvious in a big way in 2014, when Google formed a partnership with bookseller Barnes & Noble, [1] through which Google made more than a half a million public domain texts available to Barnes & Noble, to be offered for free on the Nook Shop. Barnes & Noble customers discovered that many books, especially with scientific equations, were unreadable due to errors in Google's Optical character recognition process. [2]
References
I'm sorry, but this hardly seems to be correct. The partnership b/w Google and Nook, per the NYT article used as ref above, is all about sale of print books through Google's shopping service. I am unable to find any info about any partnership b/w Google and B&N regarding ebooks. Also, the Nook support forum used as ref above (not an RS in the first place) is a dead link. Please readd the above info if you can find some concrete, reliable sources for the same. 223.227.34.151 ( talk) 17:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
When I find a public domain book in Google Books, how can I know in which library it was scanned? In my view Google Books should credit this library even if this library did not do the scanning job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coulonnus ( talk • contribs) 05:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Since October 2019 or less before, Google has disabled anonymous and registered users from saving single pages into Internet Archive or archive.is.
Any page which is quoted in a WP article may be put anytime out of the Google preview so as not to be yet a WP:verifiable source.
This as an irresponsbile initiative of Google, in a special way damaging the WP community against Wikipedia which needs a long-time digital preservation of the external sources used for WP articles. It also applies to titles published more than a century ago, which fall in the public domain and therefore without any risk of possible copyright infringement.
This is the reason why Google Books is not yet a good source and has to be removed from the Template:More citations needed. Hope to receive any comment or have someone with which it will be possible to collaborate. Micheledisaveriosp ( talk) 09:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
The redirect
GGKEY (identifier) has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 8 § GGKEY (identifier) until a consensus is reached. –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖
16:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Google Books article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | A news item involving Google Books was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 19 December 2009. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
All talk pages have been moved to Talk:Google Books/Archive 1. Anarchyte ( talk) 08:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I am curious that there is no discussion of commercial aspects of the operation at this time. Google is a for-profit operation and presumably either derives, or intends to derive in the future, a commercial return on its investment either through subscription services, advertising revenue or other means. Can someone who knows more about this aspect myself maybe introduce a relevant section to the page? Regards - Tony Tony 1212 ( talk) 20:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I have just boldly merged Google Books Library Project into this article. To be fair, the Library Project is the essence of Google Books. The other part of it, Partner Program, is associated with just a single paragraph of content. Which means there is a huge scope commonness between the two articles. They largely cover the same topic. This is exemplified as until now, half of the criticism (copyright issues) was predominantly covered at Google Books whereas the other half (academic criticism) was covered at Google Books Library Project. It makes sense to have a single consolidated article rather than two articles on the same subject. 103.6.159.81 ( talk) 10:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Under Copyright infringement, fair use and related issues the following paragraphs have numerous spelling and other issues.
Cheers. ◦◦derekbd ◦◦my talk◦◦ 21:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Where did most of the site's content? Why did it informally or secretly removed? Now, most of this article can be washed, as the site is almost empty place.-- 95.24.27.53 ( talk) 14:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Making a tentative list of improvements to be made to the article:
223.227.98.116 ( talk) 09:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
[Errors] became obvious in a big way in 2014, when Google formed a partnership with bookseller Barnes & Noble, [1] through which Google made more than a half a million public domain texts available to Barnes & Noble, to be offered for free on the Nook Shop. Barnes & Noble customers discovered that many books, especially with scientific equations, were unreadable due to errors in Google's Optical character recognition process. [2]
References
I'm sorry, but this hardly seems to be correct. The partnership b/w Google and Nook, per the NYT article used as ref above, is all about sale of print books through Google's shopping service. I am unable to find any info about any partnership b/w Google and B&N regarding ebooks. Also, the Nook support forum used as ref above (not an RS in the first place) is a dead link. Please readd the above info if you can find some concrete, reliable sources for the same. 223.227.34.151 ( talk) 17:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
When I find a public domain book in Google Books, how can I know in which library it was scanned? In my view Google Books should credit this library even if this library did not do the scanning job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coulonnus ( talk • contribs) 05:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Since October 2019 or less before, Google has disabled anonymous and registered users from saving single pages into Internet Archive or archive.is.
Any page which is quoted in a WP article may be put anytime out of the Google preview so as not to be yet a WP:verifiable source.
This as an irresponsbile initiative of Google, in a special way damaging the WP community against Wikipedia which needs a long-time digital preservation of the external sources used for WP articles. It also applies to titles published more than a century ago, which fall in the public domain and therefore without any risk of possible copyright infringement.
This is the reason why Google Books is not yet a good source and has to be removed from the Template:More citations needed. Hope to receive any comment or have someone with which it will be possible to collaborate. Micheledisaveriosp ( talk) 09:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
The redirect
GGKEY (identifier) has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 8 § GGKEY (identifier) until a consensus is reached. –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖
16:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)