4 ms·
Doubt it. Scholar is mostly search. Reader was a lot of things: search (like google news) sync engine, social network (like G+), a complex web app etc. It's pr
by lrei 14y ago
Doubt it.
Scholar is mostly search. Reader was a lot of things: search (like google news) sync engine, social network (like G+), a complex web app etc. It's probably a lot easier to have someone on the search team maintain scholar than it was to maintain reader and it doesn't conflict (yet) with G+.
Given how many of their famous employees were poached from academia, scholar is probably worth keeping for recruitment purposes alone. Not to mention employee morale.
- takluyver 14y agoIt also has citation tracking, alerts and journal metrics. Admittedly tracking citations is somewhat like tracking links for pagerank, but it must take a bit of effort - it's not just a regular search constrained to journal databases. As a regular user of Google Scholar, I hope you're right about the recruitment & morale purposes. But I've heard several people making a similar argument against killing Reader - it serves a demographic that Google might especially want to keep on side. That didn't appear to stop them.
- aheilbut 14y agoIt must have taken a lot of effort, and/or licensing agreements with publishers or the existing citation indexes.
- rm999 14y agoI think you could make the same arguments about Google Code Search, which google shut down. It was a search, and the kind of service that would appeal to many of Google'e employees.