Hand of Google

Dean W. Armstrong [18 January 2008 06:26 PM]

Fingertip cots! I hate those.

bbob drake [18 January 2008 07:43 PM]

I expected an Adam Smith/invisible hand reference...

Martin [18 January 2008 07:57 PM]

Looks kinda strange...

Gilbert White [18 January 2008 09:22 PM]

This is quite upsetting. I'm glad to know Harvard's wasn't the only copy digitized.

listen_to_dale [19 January 2008 03:27 AM]

Hey Dale, what book were you perusing?

Michael Lieberman [19 January 2008 01:53 PM]

See a few more Hands of Google here:

http://www.bookpatrol.net/2007/12/hands-of-google.html

Michael Lieberman [19 January 2008 02:11 PM]

Yikes, Dale sorry about the comment mania - not sure what happened there

Roy Schestowitz [20 January 2008 07:40 AM]

Hands off our books, Google. :-) There are open/free equivalents.

Bob DuCharme [20 January 2008 08:13 AM]

Bill Trippe had a "Google Books Stupid Page of the Day" think going for a while with several examples of these. See http://www.billtrippe.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=%22google%20books%20stupid%20page%20of%20the%20day%22 and also http://www.billtrippe.com/archives/2006/09/note_to_google.html.

Bob

Rex [20 January 2008 08:46 AM]

"To err is human, to forgive divine". Google is not perfect so these kinda mistakes are quite possible.But after this, their QA department must be in trouble.

Alen [20 January 2008 09:23 AM]

"To err is human, to forgive divine". Google is not perfect so these kinda mistakes are quite possible.But after this, their QA department must be in trouble.

Mama Razzo [21 January 2008 12:55 AM]

its a funny picture ... it only says: google is nothing "magic" there are just humans like you and me and they make mistakes for sure like everyone.

also funny is the text of the captcha i have to write its says "in" and "handmade" ;)

Bob DuCharme [21 January 2008 06:45 AM]

Unless you're a piecemeal nonprofit--which Google certainly isn't--part of the project planning for any large-scale digitization effort is deciding what level of quality you're going to have and then putting the QA infrastructure in place to attain it. 100% accuracy isn't possible, but 99.95% and 99.995% are. Of course, the latter means a more expensive QA infrastructure.

Google's QA department is only in trouble if they're not meeting their goals. I'd love to see what those goals are, but I'm not holding my breath waiting to find out.

I'm guessing that it's a figure lower than 99.95%.

Dale Dougherty [21 January 2008 08:25 PM]

listen_to_dale asks: "What book was I reading?"

White's Selbourne. (Natural History of Selbourne)

http://books.google.com/books?id=BREPAAAAYAAJ

Jason Milner [22 January 2008 02:52 AM]

It's a really funny picture...

Luistxo [22 January 2008 05:47 AM]

Gloves are magenta in the various examples. I wonder if they have Deustche Telekom's right to scan with those...

http://www.freemagenta.nl/

RKM [23 January 2008 07:44 AM]

An interesting question to ask yourself is how many hands actually touched that page (w. stylish cots or not) while it was in the library, vs. how many have seen it since it got digitized? ( And not just those viewing it to be critical.)

alberto [28 January 2008 01:12 AM]

more photos and my post from last summer:
http://albertopepe.blogspot.com/2007/09/google-hands.html

Nils [28 January 2008 08:18 AM]

I found something like this too some time ago hehe :D
But I didn't save it, stupid me :(

SAM [14 February 2008 12:30 AM]

damned cool pic. but the headline of the post is much better it remembers me to a great art picture of michael de angelo :)