Comments on: Google Book Search

By: Nik

Nik — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:01:32 +0000

Dear MM blog creator,

Your efforts are more valuable, and use-able, than that of many ‘professional’ archivists and museums. They could take a lesson from you on effective methods of spreading knowledge and good will.

As for future ideas – How about the classic “The Amateur Scientist” – this, coupled with the immense industrial and scientific surplus in America, is enough material and inspiration to possibly ignite that long needed technological revolution we have been waiting for… You know, wireless power, flying cars, geothermal energy, personal greenhouses – in the backyard, and robots for delivering the pineapples from where ever they come from to get to Chicago…

One day I will pay you back handsomely, till then, all the best in your work,

By: Jari

Jari — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 21:39:16 +0000

Greetings from Finland. First a very big thak you, this blog is one of my favourites, as I’m interested, how things ere made before WW2. Please keep up doing this. This blog has some human touch in it. Also those Google articles are scanned too low resolution, one caannot read all the text. Also I haven’t figured how to save those in my HD….

By: Mikey

Mikey — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 03:41:40 +0000

Dude! Keep it up. I’ll go into withdrawal without this site.
Google Schmoogle!

By: Eliyahu

Eliyahu — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 23:44:24 +0000

Keep ‘em coming. If you can use their scans, go ahead, but it’s still fun to look at them and discuss them here.

By: RagManX

RagManX — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:06:48 +0000

Considering you’ve already decided to keep going, at least with otherwise unavailable stuff, my comment probably has no weighting. Still, I like to type.

Please don’t stop. And keep posting stuff even if it is available via Google. I just won’t ever read everything available, and like this site so much *because* of the things you choose to put up. I visit 1 to 5 times per month, but it’s better to get selections from someone with sense than to just hit a full scanned mag and hope to find something I like while I’m looking.

By: Charlene

Charlene — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:44:10 +0000

Coming late to this (darn head cold)…

Do whatever you think best. I love your articles and your way of choosing them. Sure, there may be a vast repository somewhere, but you know how to choose interesting articles.

I’d really miss your site if you stopped posting. There aren’t many other blogs (if any) that I enjoy as much as yours.

By: Avery Montembeault

Avery Montembeault — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:45:06 +0000

I’ve looked at the google site, and while I have to say it is a great idea, its a little cumbersome to simply go in and casually browse. What I like about your site is you essentially condense out the “cool” stuff and ignore the crap. Keep it going!

By: Luis Brudna

Luis Brudna — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:32:15 +0000

Keep up the great work!

By: CurtisP

CurtisP — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:15:39 +0000

I agree with several others. Find the articles you like and let Google do the work. It is sort of like a podcast I listen to that pulls the interesting stuff off of slashdot and other websites.

Great job.

curt

By: Barry

Barry — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 07:43:46 +0000

Please ignore Google. I love your blog and whatever Google puts up is nice for reference but no substitute for my daily dose of “Modern Mechanix.” The work you do has a human side to it that cannot be approached by the Google archives. Please continue doing what you love. Thanks for so many hours of wonderful, thoughtful, and entertaining work.

By: Jerry

Jerry — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:39:40 +0000

One more thing — when you see all these comments, it’s clear that Charlie’s created a community of fans here. The comments and the cross-comments are an important part of what makes this site so worth reading.

By: Fred Fagal

Fred Fagal — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:29:51 +0000

I too love what you have done. Your choices say something about YOU. You give direction. Do not be “down” — follow your desires. That way you will not burn out. I think the other comments are “right on.” Fred F.

By: Ruth

Ruth — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:30:46 +0000

Would much rather see the stuff on your site. The way google does it is very hard to look at. You always have a nice clean scan of the page and a link to a bigger picture. Makes it far more interesting to read the weird stories you find!! Please, keep up the good work and don’t let them take it away from you.

By: Al Bear

Al Bear — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:22:38 +0000

Screw Google! I love this webpage of yours! please keep it up!

By: Vincent Gable

Vincent Gable — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:01:47 +0000

I have really liked this blog, especially the more obscure magazines. I would love to keep reading it, even if all the magazines were scanned by google.

By: StanFlouride

StanFlouride — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:23:33 +0000

Ditto to the previous comments
(I hate showing up late at a party like this)

By: Grant Zurko

Grant Zurko — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:47:49 +0000

>>This is really great, but it does mean that I have a lot of magazines it would be pointless to scan.

So? This just means Google has saved you the trouble of scanning in the articles, as well as storage and bandwidth.

You can still:

1. Find the hidden treasures among their stash
2. OCR them to get actual ASCII text
3. Post the text and a link to the images on Google’s servers, along with a brief commentary.

Honestly, I don’t have the time to look through all of Google’s scans, and a website that finds interesting tidbits and posts them is of more use to me. This is absolutely a “win” for you. And that’s even assuming that you never scan in another article from your stash of non-Popular-Science/Mechanics. Frankly, I’d still like to see some of those, as well.

By: Ray B.

Ray B. — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:51:07 +0000

Hi, here is my opinion if you still feel like reading some more niceties.
There are 2 things on your site that Google doesn’t have:
- your comments, as most other pointed (and the fact that you just choose what you want to show and share). Invaluable. Enough has been told about that (and…er…they were getting scarce recently, what about getting back to work)
- The top quality and high resolution of your scans. I have a small collection of those magazines myself. It’s a cherished treasure, although yellowish fragile and dusty. When I enlarge tour scans to full size, I have that same feeling I have whenflipping through there pages.
I tried that Google stuff. Doesn’t work the same for me.
My advice: focus more on other mags if you want, but, otherwise: DON’T CHANGE A THING!

By: Rick Auricchio

Rick Auricchio — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:25:53 +0000

And it’s our comments here that make things fun too. We’ve always learned more because one of our contributors has posted a link, or, in the best cases, a personal-experience story!

I forgot to mention that MM is a daily read for me, right on my bookmarks bar.

By: gmcgath

gmcgath — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:59:41 +0000

I’ve heard Google has clever scanners that only have to open the book or magazine a little bit. The Harvard Library would have had a major fit if Google had cut pages out of old, rare books!

By: Dave W

Dave W — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 13:25:55 +0000

I say use the google and any others you might find. You were the first, most unique and entertaining. I for one will keep coming back for the obscurities you present. Thanks for those by the way.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:21:49 +0000

I like reading the entries that you select. Going to Google might work, but then I’d miss the choice bits.

I used to work at a computer center for libraries. One division did “preservation” which means cutting books apart to digitize them. Never mind that the equipment keeps getting better and it would be nice to have those materials available today to scan at higher resolutions; they’ve already been “preserved” to death.

By: NefariousWheel

NefariousWheel — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:55:03 +0000

I suspect Google decided to scan in all those magazines because they were impressed by your awesome site and wanted to follow in your footsteps.

Your value as an editor is still more than Google’s value as an archivist.

If you ever decide to back off from the scanning job, I certainly hope Google picks up your option.

By: Markie G

Markie G — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 06:48:19 +0000

Please carry on regardless because:

1) The value you personally add by selecting the best bits is way beyond anything that could be automated by google, or replicated easily. Editorial skills like yours are VASTLY underrated.
2) The UI – layout of the site, the scaling of thumbnails and article navigation – is perfect
3) Modernmechanix.blog is an essential part of my daily web-read. I’d be crestfallen if it went away

By: Robert N.

Robert N. — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 05:49:24 +0000

Ditto.

By: rsterling78

rsterling78 — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 05:40:21 +0000

If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. This site is fine the way it is. Think of Google as your “editorial assistant” and post what you find interesting. We’ll keep logging on.

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 04:21:51 +0000

This site is a daily must see for me. I enjoy all the posts, more obscure magazines like Mechanix Illustrated are always appreciated, especially Tom McCahill’s auto tests. I don’t care if you use Google scans wherever needed.

Keep up the great work!

By: Rick Auricchio

Rick Auricchio — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 04:13:52 +0000

There’s little I can say that hasn’t already been said.

- I would not have known about Shopsin’s if it weren’t for you. Eventually I’ll get there. I grew up in NJ, worked for several years in Manhattan, and have been a Californian for almost 30 years. I still love the menu. And the video of your dad making the pancakes.

- It’s almost a disappointment when an article doesn’t have one of your “leadin” comments. They make the article!

By: Toronto

Toronto — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 03:16:03 +0000

There’s a difference between data and information, Charlie, and what you provide is the winnowing needed to make this interesting. The fact you use some somewhat obscure magazines, too, is a bonus.

By: fluffy

fluffy — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 03:05:32 +0000

At Amazon, the company they hire to scan books (for “search inside” etc.) just does it by cutting off the spines and then running it through a sheet feeder. They were also experimenting with a non-destructive scanning robot for rarer books, which looked rather a lot like the one Gutie linked to in comment 18, but I think they eventually decided it wasn’t cost-effective enough.

As many others have said, Google’s index saves you the trouble of scanning things, but doesn’t provide the same thing that you do (finding the especially-interesting stuff and providing a place for people to comment on it). I say keep the site going the way it is.