←back to thread

20 years of Google Scholar

(blog.google)
412 points thepuppet33r | 4 comments | 18 Nov 24 18:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.788s | source
Show context
random3 ◴[18 Nov 24 22:08 UTC] No.42177658[source]▶
Fun fact about Google Scholar: it’s "free", but it’s just another soulless Google product - no clear strategy, no support, and a fragile proprietary dependency in what should be an open ecosystem. This creates inherent risks for the academic community. We need the equivalent of arXiv for Google Scholar
replies(8): >>42177738 #>>42178221 #>>42178675 #>>42179796 #>>42180759 #>>42181058 #>>42181064 #>>42183137 #
1. kergonath ◴[18 Nov 24 23:14 UTC] No.42178221[source]▶
Yes. On one hand I’d like Google to improve things a bit. There are some rough edges, which is a shame because it indexes some things that are not in Scopus or Web of Knowledge, like theses and preprint repositories. On the other hand I worry that some manager somewhere would kill it if they realised that it is still around.
replies(2): >>42178417 #>>42178860 #
2. random3 ◴[18 Nov 24 23:32 UTC] No.42178417[source]▶
Every 1-2 months when Chrome updates I get banned by their throttling mechanism because I their extension makes too many requests and they see "unusual traffic"

It can take 1-2 weeks to go away and be able to use it. There's no way to get in contact with anyone. Tried the Chrome extension email, support forums.

It's a good reality check. There's no real support behind it and it can go away just like Google Reader did.

I think the motivations behind it are laudable, but they should not be the answer to the actual problem.

replies(1): >>42191443 #
3. griomnib ◴[19 Nov 24 00:27 UTC] No.42178860[source]▶
I’m fairly sure they only exist because Larry/Sergei might give half a fuck if they killed it outright, and it has a small enough team that the cost savings for killing aren’t enough for Ruth to want to make that argument.
4. kergonath ◴[20 Nov 24 07:09 UTC] No.42191443[source]▶
I agree entirely.