Cindy, Google isn't everything. And no I don't think it will ever be
everything (and I don;t want it to be -- I see a big danger in a single
source of information for everything). But it certainly tries as hard as
it can to be just that and has hundreds of billions of dollars behind its
effort to do so. There may be niches that it hasn't (yet) gotten to, but
that's where libraries will live while it's still safe there.
And a directory like the initial Yahoo is so 1995.
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Cindy Harper <cindyharper1145_at_gmail.com>wrote:
> Has google solved the problem of organised browsing, and identifying the
> pockets of content of a subset of resources, like a fairly comprehensive
> overview of the academic literature of religion, for instance? That's what
> I envision a library classification being used for. What are the Google
> world's tools? Wikipedia? A directory such as the initial Yahoo intended to
> be? Bing?
>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Peter Schlumpf <pschlumpf_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I hate to say it, but 20 years or so ago, libraries had a real chance to
> > somewhat shape this wave. But they just blew it by going around in
> circles
> > in their little world like the Nowhere Man, forever chattering about the
> > minutiae of MARC, AACR2 and Z39.50. The world moved on.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Dave Caroline
> > <dave.thearchivist_at_gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Alexander Johannesen
> > > <alexander.johannesen_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hiya,
> > > >
> > > > So, um, to play the part of the sour-puss;
> > > >
> > > > Karen says;
> > > >> Google uses the text provided by web page creators to interpret
> > > >> the meaning of the images; it doesn't interpret the images
> themselves.
> > > >
> > > > Just a quick correction; this was probably true a couple of years
> ago,
> > > but
> > > > nowadays that's simply not true. All (well, most; there's filters
> that
> > > > apply) images you find through Google are indexed after an image
> > > > interpreter have gone through. This won't tell you what's going on in
> > > super
> > > > details, of course, like interpret the meaning of some scene, but it
> > can
> > > > detect people, recognize them, tag them, detect female nipples
> > (important
> > > > to the US for some reason :) ), some attributes about the weather
> > (sunny,
> > > > raining, etc.), similarities to other pictures (yesterday I uploaded
> a
> > > > bunch of pictures of our local classical musical ensemble, and
> similar
> > > > pictures were automatically merged to form animated samples, for
> > example,
> > > > in addition to automatically tag faces it recognized), dominant
> colors,
> > > > some shape recognition and a few other bits. And note; this is only
> the
> > > > beginning.
> > > >
> > >
> > > hmm you reminded to re try one of my test searches
> > >
> > > Now google knows me and my site but does not connect any of you to my
> > site
> > > so I
> > > would be interested in what you see
> > >
> > > Imagine you used to work for a company in the UK in the 1960's
> > > or wanted to research the rumor that they used to manufacture
> transistors
> > >
> > > A google image search with "Lucas semiconductor manufacture" as the
> > > term now seems to put me on top of the pile
> > > I can see that google is working to recognise the content and put it
> > > together.
> > >
> > > I saved the page, this is what I see.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.collection.archivist.info/archive/mirror/google_lucas/search.html
> > >
> > >
> > > Dave Caroline
> > >
> >
>
Received on Mon Jul 29 2013 - 19:45:09 EDT