Scanning and Scanning and Scanning and...
Scanning world's every book means turning many, many pages
By NATASHA ROBINSON – 4 days ago
ANN ARBOR, Mich. (AP) — In a dimly lit back room on the second level of the University of Michigan library's book-shelving department, Courtney Mitchel helped a giant desktop machine digest a rare, centuries-old Bible.
Mitchel is among hundreds of librarians from Minnesota to England making digital versions of the most fragile of the books to be included in Google Inc.'s Book Search, a portal that will eventually lead users to all the estimated 50 million to 100 million books in the world.
The manually scanning — at up to 600 pages a day — is much slower than Google's regular process.
"It's monotonous," the 24-year-old said. Then she knit her career hopes into the work.
"But it's still something that I'm learning about — how to interact with really old materials and working with digital imaging, which is relevant to art history."
Its going to take a very long time to copy these works too. The accessibility is still a problem. Unfortunately searching one after downloading it is cumbersome. But then again it is there and can be looked at.
In Chicago we have the Newberry Library, which is famous for its open door policy. It is easy to make an appointment to come in and look at the rare manuscripts. The efforts of Google should be applauded on the one hand and skeptically watched on the other. Data is something this behemoth cannot get enough of, but the quality, storage, indexing and retrieval of that information still has a bit of a ways to go. Using Google Scholar is still not as effective as a card catalogue. I do have faith that the right people will get it right one day. Its an important issue because students today always Google it first, and in many cases that is all they do. Educators and librarians, administrators and public officials should all focus on this. I don't think attention spans are getting longer.
Any thoughts?
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jMr8wAZqhesLHmGt1TW9jtUT04EgD908M3780
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
Cheap cheap cheap...cheap cheap cheap
Patrons Are Cheap
At LAPL, Proposed $1 Fee for Holds Appears Dead
Norman Oder -- Library Journal, 4/23/2008
Fee was discontinued in 1994
More than 900 emails in protest
Library director “overwhelmed” by citizen concern
The Los Angeles Public Library (LAPL) proposed reinstating a $1 charge to reserve or place a hold on books, but citizen resistance has apparently killed the plan. While the Library Commission on March 20 approved a new Fines and Fees Schedule, to go into effect July 1, it is expected to approve a revised schedule this Friday, without the fee. Activists and preservationists Kim Cooper and Richard Schave, who regularly use LAPL resources for historic research, created the saveLAPL web site and generated nearly 900 email messages asking the library not to impose the holds fee. (The web site also encouraged readers to contribute to LAPL, given the library’s effort to help with the city’s $400 million shortfall.)
The campaign worked. “I am overwhelmed by the passion and concerns for the value of library services in our city expressed by hundreds of people in the e-mails," wrote City Librarian Fontayne Holmes. "Had we anticipated this kind of a response, we would not have made the recommendation for the fee in the first place. We really thought that we were reinstituting a library holds fee that we previously had for decades in the library system, a fee that was fifty cents when it was discontinued in 1994." (Of the 31 library systems LAPL surveyed in southern California, 12 currently charge 50 cents to $1 for a hold.)
“As a result, I am submitting a report to the Board of Library Commissioners, asking them to revise the Library Fines and Fees Schedule to rescind the $1.00 ‘holds’ and to increase the overdue book fine from 25 cents to 30 cents," Holmes wrote. "The increase in the overdue fines should produce revenue equal or better than the revenue from the 'holds' fee. Cooper and Schave commented, “You have been heard! Keep watching this site for more news of threats to the Library as the City budget is worked out, and ways you can speak up about how important a well funded Library is to the people of Los Angeles.”
I am posting this as an example of how cheap people can be. Perhaps the proposed dollar fee should have been halved, but still library patrons are cheap. I am sick of the starbucks cups left in the stacks. If you have money for two or three mocha half cafes then you can pop for a dollar on the odd chance you go for a book rather than your usual netflix or American Idol.
I often think Americans assume that libraries simply spring up out of the concrete already staffed and payed for. Granted, we cannot expect a totally free ride, but librarians bust their butts for nothing most of the time.
Wake up America, you are rapidly slipping into a pit of ignorance and corporate branding of your brains. Sacrifice that high calorie muffin and step over to the library one afternoon with your kids. You might be pleasantly surprised.
Good luck America. You're going to need it.
Any thoughts?
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6554386.html
At LAPL, Proposed $1 Fee for Holds Appears Dead
Norman Oder -- Library Journal, 4/23/2008
Fee was discontinued in 1994
More than 900 emails in protest
Library director “overwhelmed” by citizen concern
The Los Angeles Public Library (LAPL) proposed reinstating a $1 charge to reserve or place a hold on books, but citizen resistance has apparently killed the plan. While the Library Commission on March 20 approved a new Fines and Fees Schedule, to go into effect July 1, it is expected to approve a revised schedule this Friday, without the fee. Activists and preservationists Kim Cooper and Richard Schave, who regularly use LAPL resources for historic research, created the saveLAPL web site and generated nearly 900 email messages asking the library not to impose the holds fee. (The web site also encouraged readers to contribute to LAPL, given the library’s effort to help with the city’s $400 million shortfall.)
The campaign worked. “I am overwhelmed by the passion and concerns for the value of library services in our city expressed by hundreds of people in the e-mails," wrote City Librarian Fontayne Holmes. "Had we anticipated this kind of a response, we would not have made the recommendation for the fee in the first place. We really thought that we were reinstituting a library holds fee that we previously had for decades in the library system, a fee that was fifty cents when it was discontinued in 1994." (Of the 31 library systems LAPL surveyed in southern California, 12 currently charge 50 cents to $1 for a hold.)
“As a result, I am submitting a report to the Board of Library Commissioners, asking them to revise the Library Fines and Fees Schedule to rescind the $1.00 ‘holds’ and to increase the overdue book fine from 25 cents to 30 cents," Holmes wrote. "The increase in the overdue fines should produce revenue equal or better than the revenue from the 'holds' fee. Cooper and Schave commented, “You have been heard! Keep watching this site for more news of threats to the Library as the City budget is worked out, and ways you can speak up about how important a well funded Library is to the people of Los Angeles.”
I am posting this as an example of how cheap people can be. Perhaps the proposed dollar fee should have been halved, but still library patrons are cheap. I am sick of the starbucks cups left in the stacks. If you have money for two or three mocha half cafes then you can pop for a dollar on the odd chance you go for a book rather than your usual netflix or American Idol.
I often think Americans assume that libraries simply spring up out of the concrete already staffed and payed for. Granted, we cannot expect a totally free ride, but librarians bust their butts for nothing most of the time.
Wake up America, you are rapidly slipping into a pit of ignorance and corporate branding of your brains. Sacrifice that high calorie muffin and step over to the library one afternoon with your kids. You might be pleasantly surprised.
Good luck America. You're going to need it.
Any thoughts?
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6554386.html
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Wow, I Built a Way Back Machine and Look What Happened!
Well, I Refuse to do Any Kind of Retro Sweating
Update on Microsoft Bid on Yahoo
Microsoft maintains tough line on Yahoo
Posted by Ina Fried
With Steve Ballmer having issued sharp words on Yahoo across Europe this week, it was not a surprise to see Microsoft take a hard line on its Yahoo bid Thursday.
In its just-completed conference call with analysts, Microsoft Chief Financial Officer Chris Liddell said the company has seen no good reason to up its bid.
Liddell said Yahoo continues to lose search share and see profitability decline.
"We've yet to see tangible evidence that our bid substantially undervalues the company," Chris Liddell said. "In fact, we have seen the opposite."
Of course, Yahoo also talked tough on Tuesday in its call, suggesting that it won't consider a deal unless it fairly values the company, which it has said Microsoft's does not.
Liddell complained at the glacial pace at which Yahoo was responding to Microsoft's offer.
"We have been clear that speed is of the essence," he said. "Unfortunately, the transaction has been anything but speedy.
For those who have forgotten the details amid the seemingly endless war of words, Microsoft made its offer on February 1, saying that it would pay a combination of cash and stock valuing Yahoo at $31 a share. Yahoo rejected the offer, saying it undervalued the company. Since then, Yahoo has been looking at all kinds of other options including a tie-up with AOL and a search advertising test with Google.
Liddell reiterated the company's deadline for Yahoo to get serious about negotiations.
On Thursday, Liddell again told Yahoo to hurry up.
"Unless we make progress with Yahoo by this weekend, we will reconsider our options." He adds that those options include taking an offer directly to Yahoo shareholders or walking away from Yahoo shareholders. If Microsoft walks away, Liddell suggested Microsoft might spend the money on other acquisitions or in trying to boost its own online business.
While Microsoft was talking up the strength of its bid, it's offer actually got weaker on Thursday given that it is a half cash, half stock offer. Microsoft's shares dropped in after-hours trading Thursday in the wake of Microsoft's less-than-blowout earnings. As of around 3:30 p.m. PT, the stock was at $30.27, down $1.53, or 4.8 percent.
http://www.news.com/8301-13860_3-9928321-56.html?tag=nefd.lede
Posted by Ina Fried
With Steve Ballmer having issued sharp words on Yahoo across Europe this week, it was not a surprise to see Microsoft take a hard line on its Yahoo bid Thursday.
In its just-completed conference call with analysts, Microsoft Chief Financial Officer Chris Liddell said the company has seen no good reason to up its bid.
Liddell said Yahoo continues to lose search share and see profitability decline.
"We've yet to see tangible evidence that our bid substantially undervalues the company," Chris Liddell said. "In fact, we have seen the opposite."
Of course, Yahoo also talked tough on Tuesday in its call, suggesting that it won't consider a deal unless it fairly values the company, which it has said Microsoft's does not.
Liddell complained at the glacial pace at which Yahoo was responding to Microsoft's offer.
"We have been clear that speed is of the essence," he said. "Unfortunately, the transaction has been anything but speedy.
For those who have forgotten the details amid the seemingly endless war of words, Microsoft made its offer on February 1, saying that it would pay a combination of cash and stock valuing Yahoo at $31 a share. Yahoo rejected the offer, saying it undervalued the company. Since then, Yahoo has been looking at all kinds of other options including a tie-up with AOL and a search advertising test with Google.
Liddell reiterated the company's deadline for Yahoo to get serious about negotiations.
On Thursday, Liddell again told Yahoo to hurry up.
"Unless we make progress with Yahoo by this weekend, we will reconsider our options." He adds that those options include taking an offer directly to Yahoo shareholders or walking away from Yahoo shareholders. If Microsoft walks away, Liddell suggested Microsoft might spend the money on other acquisitions or in trying to boost its own online business.
While Microsoft was talking up the strength of its bid, it's offer actually got weaker on Thursday given that it is a half cash, half stock offer. Microsoft's shares dropped in after-hours trading Thursday in the wake of Microsoft's less-than-blowout earnings. As of around 3:30 p.m. PT, the stock was at $30.27, down $1.53, or 4.8 percent.
http://www.news.com/8301-13860_3-9928321-56.html?tag=nefd.lede
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Sharpening those Google Skills
What are We Teaching the Children?
In what is proving a wake-up call for libaries, Dr Ian Rowlands and his colleagues at the Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research (Ciber), based at University College London's centre for publishing, examined research literature on the information-seeking behaviour of the virtual scholar - and combined this with an analysis of the use made of British Library and Joint Information Systems Committee (Jisc) websites.
The report, Information Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future, found users "power-browsing" or skimming material, using "horizontal" (shallow) research. Most spent only a few minutes looking at academic journal articles and few returned to them. "It almost seems that they go online to avoid reading in the traditional sense," said the report authors.
But this behaviour was not restricted to "screenagers". "From undergraduates to professors, people exhibit a strong tendency towards shallow, horizontal, flicking behaviour in digital libraries. Factors specific to the individual, personality and background are much more significant than generation."
Further on:
Rowlands suggests in his study that schools are failing to equip students for independent online study. Academics and librarians are debating nationally and internationally whether students should be taught information literacy as a separate , accredited, skill - as occurs in some American institutions. Or whether it would be better to teach them to navigate virtual libraries within their main subject based studies - an approach favoured by many information specialists.
This all makes perfect sense. The very nature of using search engines like Google ingrain a kind skimming approach. Most students are not given even simple tools like a knowledge of Boolean searches or simple common sense rule that beginning small works best when starting out. They are not machines of precision. They stake a claim on sheer volume of information stored in their databases, the indexes are there but they do not work in a sense of a index in a book.
As I remarked previously in another post, I am working on a book. I did most of my research in the old old old school of using books. My sources were rare and often out of print works that in most cases if even available on line would be so for a price.
Students of all ages need to learn to make independent assessments of the quality of material by looking at the authors' experience, funders, use of sources, and where published.
Duh! Haven't librarians been pointing this out to educators since computers first appear in schools, libraries, and homes?
The boon of a great information exchange comes at the price of responsibility. The scenario is not that much different than that of a timid student walking into a large library and being overwhelmed by the card catalog and stacks of books around them.
I have said before that librarians should be teaching courses in grammar school on searching on-line. Like math and science, these are essential skills for any student to have.
I hope that politicians and civic leaders will get behind schools in helping them to fund this kind of education. Remember, you have to pay for this too.
Any thoughts?
Here is a link to the full story.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/librariesunleashed/story/0,,2274796,00.html
In what is proving a wake-up call for libaries, Dr Ian Rowlands and his colleagues at the Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research (Ciber), based at University College London's centre for publishing, examined research literature on the information-seeking behaviour of the virtual scholar - and combined this with an analysis of the use made of British Library and Joint Information Systems Committee (Jisc) websites.
The report, Information Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future, found users "power-browsing" or skimming material, using "horizontal" (shallow) research. Most spent only a few minutes looking at academic journal articles and few returned to them. "It almost seems that they go online to avoid reading in the traditional sense," said the report authors.
But this behaviour was not restricted to "screenagers". "From undergraduates to professors, people exhibit a strong tendency towards shallow, horizontal, flicking behaviour in digital libraries. Factors specific to the individual, personality and background are much more significant than generation."
Further on:
Rowlands suggests in his study that schools are failing to equip students for independent online study. Academics and librarians are debating nationally and internationally whether students should be taught information literacy as a separate , accredited, skill - as occurs in some American institutions. Or whether it would be better to teach them to navigate virtual libraries within their main subject based studies - an approach favoured by many information specialists.
This all makes perfect sense. The very nature of using search engines like Google ingrain a kind skimming approach. Most students are not given even simple tools like a knowledge of Boolean searches or simple common sense rule that beginning small works best when starting out. They are not machines of precision. They stake a claim on sheer volume of information stored in their databases, the indexes are there but they do not work in a sense of a index in a book.
As I remarked previously in another post, I am working on a book. I did most of my research in the old old old school of using books. My sources were rare and often out of print works that in most cases if even available on line would be so for a price.
Students of all ages need to learn to make independent assessments of the quality of material by looking at the authors' experience, funders, use of sources, and where published.
Duh! Haven't librarians been pointing this out to educators since computers first appear in schools, libraries, and homes?
The boon of a great information exchange comes at the price of responsibility. The scenario is not that much different than that of a timid student walking into a large library and being overwhelmed by the card catalog and stacks of books around them.
I have said before that librarians should be teaching courses in grammar school on searching on-line. Like math and science, these are essential skills for any student to have.
I hope that politicians and civic leaders will get behind schools in helping them to fund this kind of education. Remember, you have to pay for this too.
Any thoughts?
Here is a link to the full story.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/librariesunleashed/story/0,,2274796,00.html
Monday, April 21, 2008
Be Sure to Mention My Name
Cross Refeferencing Service Launching the Summer
Weekly News Digest
April 21, 2008 — In addition to this week's NewsBreak(s), the editors have compiled the Weekly News Digest, featuring stories from the week just past that you should know about. Watch for additional coverage to appear in the next print issue of Information Today. CLICK HERE to view all of this week's Weekly News Digest items.
CrossRef to Launch Plagiarism Detection Service CrossRef (www.crossref.org) announced an agreement with iParadigms, LLC (www.iparadigms.com) to launch the CrossCheck service to aid in verifying the originality of scholarly content. Following the success of CrossRef’s recent pilot of CrossCheck, the plagiarism detection service is scheduled to go live in June.
CrossRef is partnering with iParadigms to offer its members—scholarly and professional publishers—the opportunity to verify the originality of works submitted for publication using the iThenticate service to check against a vast database of proprietary as well as open web content. Until now, there was no automated way to check submissions against previous publications because the published literature had not been indexed and "text fingerprinted" for this purpose. The CrossCheck database will include the full-text journals of leading academic publishers, and it is expected to grow very rapidly over the coming months as CrossRef member publishers sign up for the service.
CrossCheck will be available to all CrossRef members who opt to contribute their content to the database. To use the service, publishers will need to integrate the checking tool into their editorial processes and develop suitable policies and guidelines. CrossRef is working with iParadigms, member publishers, and editorial system software producers on appropriate technical information and guidelines for CrossCheck.
iParadigms’ products include Turnitin, a web-based service used by students and faculty for the digital assessment of academic work, and iThenticate, an internet service that enables companies to determine originality and check documents for misappropriation.
Source: CrossRef
http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/wndReader.asp?ArticleId=48820
Weekly News Digest
April 21, 2008 — In addition to this week's NewsBreak(s), the editors have compiled the Weekly News Digest, featuring stories from the week just past that you should know about. Watch for additional coverage to appear in the next print issue of Information Today. CLICK HERE to view all of this week's Weekly News Digest items.
CrossRef to Launch Plagiarism Detection Service CrossRef (www.crossref.org) announced an agreement with iParadigms, LLC (www.iparadigms.com) to launch the CrossCheck service to aid in verifying the originality of scholarly content. Following the success of CrossRef’s recent pilot of CrossCheck, the plagiarism detection service is scheduled to go live in June.
CrossRef is partnering with iParadigms to offer its members—scholarly and professional publishers—the opportunity to verify the originality of works submitted for publication using the iThenticate service to check against a vast database of proprietary as well as open web content. Until now, there was no automated way to check submissions against previous publications because the published literature had not been indexed and "text fingerprinted" for this purpose. The CrossCheck database will include the full-text journals of leading academic publishers, and it is expected to grow very rapidly over the coming months as CrossRef member publishers sign up for the service.
CrossCheck will be available to all CrossRef members who opt to contribute their content to the database. To use the service, publishers will need to integrate the checking tool into their editorial processes and develop suitable policies and guidelines. CrossRef is working with iParadigms, member publishers, and editorial system software producers on appropriate technical information and guidelines for CrossCheck.
iParadigms’ products include Turnitin, a web-based service used by students and faculty for the digital assessment of academic work, and iThenticate, an internet service that enables companies to determine originality and check documents for misappropriation.
Source: CrossRef
http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/wndReader.asp?ArticleId=48820
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Britanica Online Fight Back
Kung FU Fighting with Wikipedia
The publisher's Britannica WebShare initiative, launched April 13 with Twitter streaming of a daily topic, announced on Friday a service called Britannica Widgets, with which bloggers can "post an entire cluster of related Encyclopaedia Britannica articles" for free.
Britannica also is offering "people who publish with some regularity on the Internet, be they bloggers, Webmasters, or writers," free access to Britannica's online content, with registration.
To use the widgets, anyone can now "copy and paste the several lines of code associated with each widget as HTML into the appropriate place on your site," Tom of Britannica WebShare wrote in a post. "Any readers who click on a link will get the entire Britannica article on the subject, even if access to the article normally requires a subscription. Really. Try it."
I somehow feel this is going to be an uphill battle. The article implies for example that since I keep a regular blog that I could get free online access. Well, I might be induced to look into it if I could be guaranteed no spam mail or that I will have unlimited access. To me that is the rub of it. I am spoiled by the Internet. I enjoy the instant gratification of for nothing school of researching.
The frustration of working remotely from home and being denied access because there are problems with the server, you have no proxy, your subscription has expired, and a host of other little annoyances are part of the virtual world.
For example, I am currently working on a book. Most of my researching is being done in libraries and at home with my personal reference collection-that is BOOKS! I know, you have heard campfire tales of your grandparents owning and using these heavy box shaped paper weights. Yet sometimes it isn't available for free on the web. I often find that I need works of a peer reviewed quality, and the Internet is a haven for all sorts of rubbish. It is also full of potential good, too. The problem is that good information is often swimming in an ocean of worthless information. Most good researching on line must happen through libraries and university servers. Scholars publish on line sometimes, and there is a new generation of teachers and university professors using social software and wiki's to publish. The emergence of open source software has led to some hope of free access to the best literature in sciences, social sciences, and arts. The problem is that greed often precedes these endeavors. In most cases it is not a universal access where for example, the X university is posting actual complete video taped or pod casted lectures of professor Y with notes. You couldn't really sit at home and watch an entire semester of lectures on You Tube for example.
The concept of open access on the Internet as theorized by the early architects of the Internet is different than what we see in most cases. The exceptions are sites like Wikipedia. Even the long awaited and talked about Google initiative to scan ever book in existence and post on line is not what it seems. Often I will find that I get only portions of the book and links to .com selling sites like Amazon or Borders Books.
Then I think that I some how got it wrong. That I never understood the point of free access on line and that my deluded notion of some Utopian free for all was me building sandcastles.
So yes, I will walk into the Britannica Online with my tail between my legs and humbly sign up and hope for the best. I am seeking knowledge after all, not ask Yahoo or Billy Bub.com online.
Any thoughts?
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9923867-7.html?tag=nefd.top
The publisher's Britannica WebShare initiative, launched April 13 with Twitter streaming of a daily topic, announced on Friday a service called Britannica Widgets, with which bloggers can "post an entire cluster of related Encyclopaedia Britannica articles" for free.
Britannica also is offering "people who publish with some regularity on the Internet, be they bloggers, Webmasters, or writers," free access to Britannica's online content, with registration.
To use the widgets, anyone can now "copy and paste the several lines of code associated with each widget as HTML into the appropriate place on your site," Tom of Britannica WebShare wrote in a post. "Any readers who click on a link will get the entire Britannica article on the subject, even if access to the article normally requires a subscription. Really. Try it."
I somehow feel this is going to be an uphill battle. The article implies for example that since I keep a regular blog that I could get free online access. Well, I might be induced to look into it if I could be guaranteed no spam mail or that I will have unlimited access. To me that is the rub of it. I am spoiled by the Internet. I enjoy the instant gratification of for nothing school of researching.
The frustration of working remotely from home and being denied access because there are problems with the server, you have no proxy, your subscription has expired, and a host of other little annoyances are part of the virtual world.
For example, I am currently working on a book. Most of my researching is being done in libraries and at home with my personal reference collection-that is BOOKS! I know, you have heard campfire tales of your grandparents owning and using these heavy box shaped paper weights. Yet sometimes it isn't available for free on the web. I often find that I need works of a peer reviewed quality, and the Internet is a haven for all sorts of rubbish. It is also full of potential good, too. The problem is that good information is often swimming in an ocean of worthless information. Most good researching on line must happen through libraries and university servers. Scholars publish on line sometimes, and there is a new generation of teachers and university professors using social software and wiki's to publish. The emergence of open source software has led to some hope of free access to the best literature in sciences, social sciences, and arts. The problem is that greed often precedes these endeavors. In most cases it is not a universal access where for example, the X university is posting actual complete video taped or pod casted lectures of professor Y with notes. You couldn't really sit at home and watch an entire semester of lectures on You Tube for example.
The concept of open access on the Internet as theorized by the early architects of the Internet is different than what we see in most cases. The exceptions are sites like Wikipedia. Even the long awaited and talked about Google initiative to scan ever book in existence and post on line is not what it seems. Often I will find that I get only portions of the book and links to .com selling sites like Amazon or Borders Books.
Then I think that I some how got it wrong. That I never understood the point of free access on line and that my deluded notion of some Utopian free for all was me building sandcastles.
So yes, I will walk into the Britannica Online with my tail between my legs and humbly sign up and hope for the best. I am seeking knowledge after all, not ask Yahoo or Billy Bub.com online.
Any thoughts?
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9923867-7.html?tag=nefd.top
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
