←back to thread

20 years of Google Scholar

(blog.google)
412 points thepuppet33r | 3 comments | 18 Nov 24 18:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.637s | source
Show context
thepuppet33r ◴[18 Nov 24 18:01 UTC] No.42175024[source]▶
Yes, Google deserves to be distrusted and avoided as a whole, but Google Scholar is a genuinely net good for humanity.
replies(3): >>42175704 #>>42180078 #>>42181021 #
dumpHero2 ◴[18 Nov 24 19:00 UTC] No.42175704[source]▶
I have similar feeing for Gmail (it's effective anti spam engine), google maps and google docs (which pioneered shared docs. It feels outdated on many fronts now, but it was a pioneer).
replies(8): >>42175773 #>>42175878 #>>42176170 #>>42177151 #>>42177404 #>>42179179 #>>42186118 #>>42187586 #
globular-toast ◴[18 Nov 24 21:17 UTC] No.42177151[source]▶
Google maps would only be a net good if the data was available under a free licence. As it is they take data from people that should have gone to a public project like OpenStreetMap.
replies(2): >>42177478 #>>42178530 #
1. arccy ◴[18 Nov 24 21:49 UTC] No.42177478[source]▶
"take", these people would never have produced any data if gmaps wasn't there...
replies(1): >>42177599 #
2. hatthew ◴[18 Nov 24 22:01 UTC] No.42177599[source]▶
At one point I contributed quite a bit to google maps, because it was the primary map system I was using at the time. Had I been using an OSM-based system, I would have made contributions there instead.
replies(1): >>42177773 #
3. arccy ◴[18 Nov 24 22:25 UTC] No.42177773[source]▶
indeed, osm can't paint itself like a victim, it needs good end products to bring in contributors.