4 ms·
It's fascinating to read that article: > Page wanted to know how long it would take to scan more than a hundred-million books, so he started with one that was
by zeveb 8y ago
It's fascinating to read that article:
> Page wanted to know how long it would take to scan more than a hundred-million books, so he started with one that was lying around. Using the metronome to keep a steady pace, he and Mayer paged through the book cover-to-cover. It took them 40 minutes.
> Michigan told Page that at the current pace, digitizing their entire collection—7 million volumes—was going to take about a thousand years. Page, who’d by now given the problem some thought, replied that he thought Google could do it in six.
> In just over a decade, after making deals with Michigan, Harvard, Stanford, Oxford, the New York Public Library, and dozens of other library systems, the company, outpacing Page’s prediction, had scanned about 25 million books. It cost them an estimated $400 million. It was a feat not just of technology but of logistics.
> At its peak, the project involved about 50 full-time software engineers. They developed optical character-recognition software for turning raw images into text; they wrote de-warping and color-correction and contrast-adjustment routines to make the images easier to process; they developed algorithms to detect illustrations and diagrams in books, to extract page numbers, to turn footnotes into real citations, and, per Brin and Page’s early research, to rank books by relevance.
Doesn't that take you back to an optimistic time when Google was exciting, and we thought that it could do amazing amounts of good for the world? I miss that era.
- icelancer 8y agoYeah, it does. It's also not wholly Google's fault, obviously, since ppod clearly illustrated why. No good deed goes unsued.
- jacobolus 8y agoI worked for the Harvard library for a while (as a part time student job) examining the quality of a lot of these Google scans in ~2005. I’m frankly not very impressed by Google’s scanning process, OCR, image detection, de-warping, contrast adjustment, general QA/QC, etc. Quality is variable, peak quality is mediocre, and the results are largely useless for anything but text. Like a lot of other parts of Google, it’s a case where they tried to cheap out on trained human labor, and make it up with algorithms. On the upside, even a mediocre book scan is better than nothing.