Slashdot Mirror


How Google Book Search Got Lost (backchannel.com)

Google Books was the company's first moonshot. But 15 years later, the project is stuck in low-Earth orbit, argues an article on Backchannel. From the article: When Google Books started almost 15 years ago, it also seemed impossibly ambitious: An upstart tech company that had just tamed and organized the vast informational jungle of the web would now extend the reach of its search box into the offline world. By scanning millions of printed books from the libraries with which it partnered, it would import the entire body of pre-internet writing into its database. [...] Two things happened to Google Books on the way from moonshot vision to mundane reality. Soon after launch, it quickly fell from the idealistic ether into a legal bog, as authors fought Google's right to index copyrighted works and publishers maneuvered to protect their industry from being Napsterized. A decade-long legal battle followed -- one that finally ended last year, when the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal by the Authors Guild and definitively lifted the legal cloud that had so long hovered over Google's book-related ambitions. But in that time, another change had come over Google Books, one that's not all that unusual for institutions and people who get caught up in decade-long legal battles: It lost its drive and ambition. Google stopped updating Books blog in 2012, and folded it into the main Google Search blog. The author reports that Google still has people working on Book Search, and they are adding new books, but the pace is rather slower.

46 comments

  1. Sigh. by ledow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are they a shareholder-answerable business?

    Does it make them money?

    No? What did you expect?

    This isn't surprising. It never took off like some other things, it therefore turns into an expense with little return (Do they charge a percentage of book sales found through their searches? Can they enforce that and stop you just taking the ISBN and buying from Amazon once you've found it?), so it will die when people lose personal interest in it.

    The only things I can see staying any significant length of time are Google search and Google Apps. Everything else is just a boredom / filler project that can disappear like so many others, Google or not.

    1. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >Are they a shareholder-answerable business?

      Yes, and they should cut executive pay. There are thousands of highly talented individuals that would do excellently at senior level management and board level positions for little to no pay. Am I using the 'asshole businessperson' logic correctly?

      >Does it make them money?

      You're posting on Slashdot, which *used* to be a haven for IT professionals, and the stereotype of 'IT only costs money, it generates no revenue' is still alive and well. But sure, you do you.

      >No? What did you expect?

      Exactly fucking this. They're not called 'moonshots' for nothing. Maybe you're just an ignorant asshole that knows nothing of the first Apollo missions, but go look those up.

      >This isn't surprising. It never took off like some other things, it therefore turns into an expense with little return (Do they charge a percentage of book sales found through their searches? Can they enforce that and stop you just taking the ISBN and buying from Amazon once you've found it?), so it will die when people lose personal interest in it.

      You need a better prescription because your shortsightedness is pretty bad. Let's see, Google could make a scientific publishing platform, combine that with search to prioritize and encourage people to check out their paid article/news service, which could have fact checking built in, and they could work out deals with the Associated Press to open up an online only news publishing wing. Google knows that there are certain people that *will* pay for things, and so they could use their vast inventory of information from books to complement/fill out services.

      Hell, they could take interesting random snippets from books that Google thinks are relevant to search terms, put some performance metrics on it, such as time spent reading quotes/text sections, or give people automated reports/answers to relatively complex questions, like 'what are the differences between x and y', and Google could compile a report with answers on it.

      >The only things I can see staying any significant length of time are Google search and Google Apps. Everything else is just a boredom / filler project that can disappear like so many others, Google or not.

      So that whole 'Android' thing didn't work out, huh? And mobile search just sucks donkey balls, right?

      And those self driving cars are just shit, right? And none of those patents will ever be useful, amirite?

    2. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Being an academic researcher, a future where Google Books and Google Scholar did not exist would reduce scientific output by well over 50%.

      Everyone uses both to find citations and data in minutes. That would take hours and booking assistance with a librarian in the university library to accomplish the same task that needs to be repeated dozens of times for each paper.

      And that is assuming the university library has a copy on hand.

    3. Re:Sigh. by ledow · · Score: 1

      So is your university paying Google a subscription to do it?

      This is the point. They're not.

  2. No surprise here, move along... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When I worked at the Google IT help desk in 2008, the building next door had all the book scanners. It was supposedly a miserable place to work at, low pay for flipping book pages, a relentless daily quota and a high turnover rate. Makes help desk support look like paradise.

    1. Re:No surprise here, move along... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have said many times you were unemployed in 2008. Why do you make up a story for every situation? What do you gain?

    2. Re:No surprise here, move along... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0

      You have said many times you were unemployed in 2008.

      I was unemployed from 2009 to 2010, underemployed for six months (working 20 hours per month), and filed for chapter seven bankruptcy in 2011.

      Why do you make up a story for every situation?

      Why do you continue to distort my positions?

      What do you gain?

      Ad revenues for my websites. Thank you for your participations.

    3. Re:No surprise here, move along... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You lie for clicks.

      The world would have been a better place if you did not learn to read after all. Perhaps your early teachers knew more about you than you think.

    4. Re:No surprise here, move along... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      You lie for clicks.

      I do not.

      The world would have been a better place if you did not learn to read after all. Perhaps your early teachers knew more about you than you think.

      I graduated the eighth grade with a college-level reading comprehension that allowed me to skip high school and go into community college. My Special Ed teachers never encouraged me to read beyond my ability. That was my own effort to learn more than what my teachers were willing to teach.

  3. google books by Gronkers · · Score: 1

    Sad thing is if done right Google books could have competed with Goodreads, Amazon, and others making them billions. Just another of googles failures with half assing projects and then pulling the plug. They are adding up.

    --
    - Gronk!
    1. Re:google books by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I haven't failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." - Thomas Edison, on the electric light bulb.

    2. Re:google books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does Goodreads really make much money?

    3. Re: google books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this modded off topic?

    4. Re: google books by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Why is this modded off topic?

      Probably because of my reputation of being a "toxic troll" to some overly-sensitive asshats.

    5. Re:google books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you stop before you find a way that does work, you've failed.

  4. Re:Lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The preceding message was brought to you by The Copyright Troll

  5. Re: Lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your story is bullshit.

    Linux already won the OS wars anyway.

  6. They didn't automate page flipping? by swb · · Score: 1

    Jeeze, no wonder it wasn't a huge success.

    I would have assumed they could done:

    1) Cut off the spine and sheet feed books that were common enough that a copy could be destroyed in the process (or hell, it could have been rebound and resold -- perhaps they could have advanced a technique for unbinding-rebinding, too).

    2) Automate page flipping for books that couldn't be spine-cut or sheet fed. This seems like it would have been a major side benefit of this project, a page flipping book scanner. It would seem like something that could almost be a niche product business unto itself -- I'd imagine there are many organizations or even people with stacks of bound materials they would like scanned but where the reality of scanning bound material in traditional ways is just too labor intensive.

    3) Some small number of books may need to manually scanned because they are fragile or rare, but I'd think automated page flipping would cover the vast majority.

    1. Re:They didn't automate page flipping? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      2) Automate page flipping for books that couldn't be spine-cut or sheet fed.

      My understanding of the early book scanners was a chair that the operator sat back in to look at the overhead monitor. One button took a picture of the page, the other button flipped the page. If the book went out of alignment, the operator had to readjust it. The technology may have changed since then, as the human component was a big problem for the program back then.

      http://hackaday.com/2012/11/16/google-books-team-open-sources-their-book-scanner/

    2. Re:They didn't automate page flipping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The scanner was already revolutionary: it used IR grids projected onto the pages to figure out the curvature of the pages and digitally flatten them in post-processing. So, it didn't matter if the pages weren't exactly flat or straight. This was to compensate for the books still being bound and having humans turn the pages.

      There are people who cut the bindings to scan books. They're the librarians who don't know what they're doing. I met one in charge of a rare books collection once; he was on his way out, because he was old and didn't know anything about scanning books.

      Flipping pages for the machines to read is a tedious job. That's why there are people who fail out of classes, so that there will always be someone to do the tedious jobs. The world will always need ditch diggers.

    3. Re:They didn't automate page flipping? by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have a friend who is weird even by my social groups standards.

      One of his 'interests' is preserving old DEC documentation. They just use a binding guillotine and a high speed sheet feeder scanner. Along with countless tricks to restore tape for one last read pass etc.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:They didn't automate page flipping? by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      90% of books that need scanning should be cut up.

      Just not the books that Google borrowed from a library. Librarians are the people who can tell the difference, but I'm sure Google could come up with something to do 99% of the sorting (mostly, already scanned...)

      What they really need are portable scanning solutions. LIbrarians are just the kind of people that would love to help, so long as their books don't go too far out of their control. Even absent that, most libraries produce a steady stream of 'discards' that should be checked against the 'books database' first.

      Anybody should be able to take a picture of a title page and have Google tell them if they want the book for scanning. 'Book people' would do it.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:They didn't automate page flipping? by GuB-42 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Google had to to it in the least damaging way possible. It was a necessary condition if they wanted libraries to cooperate.
      Non-library books were processed destructively, by cutting off the spine.

    6. Re:They didn't automate page flipping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ditch diggers make good money! It's a pretty fun job and generally unionized. The phrase should be "the world needs more page turners"

    7. Re:They didn't automate page flipping? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      As a virtual ditch digger in Silicon Valley, I wouldn't work as a page turner (circa 2008). Pay and working conditions were terrible. I also didn't want to work under a former roommate. A job is not worth sacrificing a friendship.

    8. Re: They didn't automate page flipping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are retarded. Why post this?

    9. Re: They didn't automate page flipping? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      You are retarded.

      No. I only went to Special Ed classes for eight years because I had an undiagnosed hearing loss in one ear. I skipped high school and went on to community college. I fail see what my education has to do with your comment.

      Why post this?

      It was relevant. Your point?

  7. Re: Lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You leave windows because they are closed source. So you come in grab the Linux kernel with how many engineering years worth of work for free. Touch it up and then don't feel the need to give anything back?

  8. Re: Lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude you're stupid enough to reply to a dumb troll.

    Learn what the GPL actually requires from companies/people that never 'ship' the code. Private 'internal use' mods have always been allowed. But it's a bad idea, private forks have to be maintained.

  9. GB vs Project Gutenberg by xanthos · · Score: 1

    I was always of the opinion that Google Books was a rip off of Project Gutenberg.

    --
    Average Intelligence is a Scary Thing
    1. Re:GB vs Project Gutenberg by tepples · · Score: 2

      Project Gutenberg specializes in notable books that are more than three generations old.

    2. Re:GB vs Project Gutenberg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      No. Gutenberg makes text versions of fairly common books. You might think that they're uncommon, but as an academic who specializes in European books of the 15th-17th centuries, I can tell you that Google has found things that are absolutely miraculous. I've seen Google scans of books that exist in only four copies in libraries across Europe. I've seen whole sub-genres of literature that were thought lost suddenly appear on the internet. If you work in early modern literature, especially older forms of German and French or newer forms of Latin, Google Books and its associated HathiTrust project are a revolution, and the Gutenberg Project isn't even a blip on the radar.

    3. Re:GB vs Project Gutenberg by Solandri · · Score: 2

      Project Gutenberg scans books which are out of copyright, and only famous ones.

      Google Books scans contemporary works. That in itself made it worth doing. Basically if the Library of Congress burned down, there would be millions if not billions of contemporary books and magazines which existed only on the authors' computers, and in printed form on collectors shelves. There would be no central database of these works, much less a searchable one. Regardless of what you think of Google Books or how boring it is to work there (I'm having similar boredom problems scanning dozens of my family's photo albums), it's a project well worth doing.

  10. Time to free the data by hackel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Google Books always seemed like a great idea, but the idea of the search giant owning all of the data always made me incredibly uncomfortable. This data should be in the public domain. Authors should feel *privileged* to submit their works for inclusion in the database, not fighting it. It seems that, at least recently, Google Books has served primarily as a means to drive book *sales*. That's not an admirable goal. It's time for Google Books to be converted to a community-driven effort, like Wikipedia. Release all the data under a Free database license that ensures the data can not be used commercially and allow the community to help with the effort. This would be an incredible achievement for humanity in general. Oh well, one can dream...

    1. Re:Time to free the data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know nothing about copyright law and authors sense of entitlement.
      Write once, make money forever! Don't sell the book, but sue people if they copy it for statutory damages!

      Profit!

    2. Re: Time to free the data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It wasn't even about all that!! Google had scanned in thousands of titles that were old and which NOBODY claimed ownership over. ANY of the authors, publishers, or copyright holders could at any time require Google go remove the title and they glady would. Instead everything had to come to a grinding halt over this bullshit.

      I'm sorry, but there is "a limit" to this copyright insanity. Many of the authors, or their relatives, whoever, were found to be dead or cound not be contacted, and essentially abandoned the titles, but then you have dickheads like you with your copyright arguments like the above. Everything is soley 'step 3, teh profit!!!' without anyone giving attention to the other negative things about this capitalist mentality. Listen, I'm not saying they should give it away for free, not that the author isn't entitled to some fair compensation. I do however reject and defecate on your argument. Peace out mother fucker.

  11. yeah, google is now controlled by idiots by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Seriously, Google is now becoming a joke very fast and will no doubt follow the typical MBA path to dying off. Worse, they will choose to outsource to India and CHina while ignoring the fact that they are losing their capabilities and sending it to their competitors.
    But, one of the best tools that they had up and coming was the android that was built in swappable parts. that would have allowed for TRUE competition to occur in android phone. Now, Google will see Samsung and CHinese companies build their own software and end up controlling BOTH software and hardware.
    THis is all due to their switch from innovative tech CEO at Google to a worthless MBAs, combined with alphabet allowing this shit to happen.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:yeah, google is now controlled by idiots by ruszki · · Score: 1

      I think you all missing the point here, google needs to feed the beast (AI)

  12. The google as corporate cancer by shanen · · Score: 1

    Good comment and deserves the "insightful" mod. My thoughts are similar, though I'd appeal to first principles:

    The original mission statement was overwhelming, but the original scanning project fit with the idea of all knowledge for everyone. The shite hit the fan when they tried to squeeze PROFITS out of it and their lust for profits conflicted with the vested interests and fantasy profits of the publishers. (Or maybe it wasn't so much the fantasy profits associated with the orphan works as the actual competition from public domain books against the fresh books, many of which are basically garbage that deserves to be crushed in the market.)

    Anyway, back to the google's mission statement. They were overwhelmed by too much information and had to prioritize things. The profit motive drove them to focus on the most important information of all, the information in the ads that they get paid for. Making all the world's information available simply mutated into making the ads available and the metric of utility was reduced to the profits of the corporations that are paying the google corporation. Any benefit to actual human beings has become rather incidental.

    Remember that old slogan about evil? That's mutated, too. The current slogan of the google is "All your attention are belong to us", but that's how most of the so-called successful corporate cancers feel these days. We're forced to pick on the basis of being manipulated (per my sig) or considering which flavor of cancer seems relatively less evil today.

    Just a few examples, but beyond the google I'm especially aware of Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, and Exxon. Feel free to add your favorite corporate cancer here. (In particular I want to identify the the cancer playing games with my mouse. I thought the Comet cursor was dead and buried... Or maybe it's the NSA or the Russians?)

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    1. Re:The google as corporate cancer by markhb · · Score: 1

      I figured the "don't be evil" thing went away the moment they bought DoubleClick, inventors of the tracking cookie and the prototype of the "evil internet corporation."

      --
      Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
    2. Re:The google as corporate cancer by Etcetera · · Score: 1

      Just a few examples, but beyond the google I'm especially aware of Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, and Exxon. Feel free to add your favorite corporate cancer here.

      Exxon? Really? That's fairly retro. Ranting about Standard Oil and, to some extent, Baby Bells that aren't directly involved in cell tracking, seems rather quaint.

      Replace Exxon with Facebook and you've got a far stronger argument. Exxon can charge me for oil and oil products. Facebook has enough privileges on any given smartphone to track me 24 hours a day and manipulate my interaction with most of my friends (while Google controls my interaction with rest of the world).

      Far more important.

    3. Re:The google as corporate cancer by shanen · · Score: 1

      The never-ending abrasion of the spirit of trolldom is apparently making my skin too thin and I initially overreacted against your comment when I should have thanked you for reminding me of Facebook. At the time I was composing the comment, I was actually thinking there was another humongous and recent company to mention, but I just couldn't recall Facebook and actually used Exxon as a substitute.

      However I'm also feeling (perhaps again due to the abrasion?) that I should defend the inclusion of "retro" Exxon on two grounds: (1) There are various forms of cancer, and they are all fatal to their host, and Exxon is just an older form (that was partly "treated" by the breakup surgery on Standard Oil), and (2) Exxon was the first one I recognized (and I've been boycotting all things Exxon in the 30+ years since then). Or maybe I'm just straining the metaphor too hard?

      Maybe I'm also unsure how evil Facebook is and how worthy it is of inclusion on the list of EVIL cancers? (Questioning my own thinking?) There is a real question about when the EVIL inflection point is reached. I'm pretty well convinced that any sufficiently large company will be forced by the rules of the crooked game in America to become an evil cancer, but has Facebook passed that point? Based on market cap, it would seem almost certain, but I regard stock price as fantasy, so the real value of Facebook remains unclear and it is possible that the company is much smaller than it seems, in which case the morality of the controlling people (mostly Zuckerberg in Facebook's case) is still relevant. What would happen if Zuckerberg actually erased all of our personal data (and destroyed Facebook)? (If he could, eh?)

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  13. Make Google ads get lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

    Ads/script & malware rob speed/security/privacy

    Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).

    Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!

    Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirects (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + lightens DNS load & resolves faster from local system RAM!

    * Via what u NATIVELY have in the IP stack in FASTER kernelmode!

    APK

    P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/

  14. Spin Google Books off into a non-profit by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

    Things like this that are of such cultural significance shouldn't be subject to the vagaries of Wall Street and its hedge-fund douchebros. It should be spun off into a non-profit to which other entities can contribute donations. Google can provide the seed funding and get a nice fat tax write-off.

    --
    'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman