Link LibraryThing accounts to Google?
As I said in my talk post, we have spoken to Google about how to link and search Google Book Search reliably and effectively from LibraryThing.Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to discuss much more than that. I can say that there is no substance to the rumor that Google is re-engineering CueCats to beam targeted advertisements onto your bedroom wall. I am also able to concede that the press accurately reported how Larry and Sergey beat me at drunken thumb-wrestling. But I cannot comment on whether Abby, sober and wielding a hitherto-unnoticed sixth finger, restored LibraryThing's honor.
Here's a hypothetical proposal. We could basically do this now, without Google's help. And maybe Google could help.
Imagine if LibraryThing members could search across their books using Google BookSearch. That would be great, right?
But to do it, members would have to link their books to their Google account, connecting what they've cataloged on LibraryThing to the account that unites GMail, Blogger, Google Reader, Google Talk, Orkut, and the rest. And, by doing this, they would also connect their reading to their Google search history.
If this were to happen, connecting your LibraryThing and Google accounts would be voluntary, but searching your library all together would require that link, and require Google having all of your books from LibraryThing. I'm not sure what, if anything, Google would do with this information—perhaps nothing—but the option would be there.
What do people feel about this? Would you do it. Would allowing some absolutely private books to stay on LT help? What would make this work or not work?
Labels: drunken thumb wrestling, google book search, privacy, sexdactyly
posted by Tim at 10:10 AM
94 Comments:
I'd be interested, and linking the data to my Google account wouldn't be too much of a problem - as long as my LT profile remained relatively independent. For example, I wouldn't want to be required to list my gmail address instead of my primary email address on my profile, since I only use gmail as a secondary account. And I wouldn't want to have to log into my Google account to use LT. But if LT remained independent in that way, then I would definitely be for it.
I'd be cool with it (this is really how catalogs should work in the first place), and frankly, if you can get my CueCat to do something else when I'm not wanding books, that would be great. Right now it is sitting in a tangle of wires near my desk. The fact that you think my CueCat is in my bedroom reassures me you don't really know too much about me.
I appreciate your asking about this... I increasingly opt-in, and if I decide to do something nefarious, I'll just remember not to use LibraryThing to record what books I read to accomplish the deed (and I'll use library computers to do the searches). Honestly, I'm more afraid people would find me boring. That doesn't mean I trust Google, but it does mean that I trust you guys.
I guarantee some people will not like this, but maybe a lot less than you worry about.
I think it's great. I like only having to log in once.. As long as Google does as it should all should be OK, and actually I think the more info that is collected the better - we get better service because they have more info.
I'm a bit of a Google fan. Gmail, Google Maps, Google Reader, Google Docs, Google Checkout, Blogger, I use them all...
Since I already am a member of Google, I don't see how it can hurt. Nothing is private these days anymore. *Sigh*
I'd do it.
I want this. I've already created my library in Google to try and achieve it, but Google's inability to import most of my ISBN's frustrated me.
However, I'm not convinced that the quality of LT's database of Google Book IDs is more than about 80% accurate.
That can improve however, but I'd like to see it improved before the link to Google is made, otherwise I'd have to correct the data in two loctions, not one.
I don't mind this either. I do think that absolutely private books will, however, be necessary for some. Also, I believe that Google allows you to opt out of recording search history... That should help some people opt in. I would do this.
I agree—whether it's 80 or 90%. (I think it depends on what sort of books you're talking about.)
Good linking would remove the need for LT to keep such a database. Until then, LT should make it easier for members to edit the data.
>>Nothing is private these days anymore. *Sigh*
That sigh, to me, suggests it shouldn't be done.
I already have almost everything on Google anyway, so I think this would be great.
I definitely don't want to link my LT account to Google.
My experiences with the previous GBSS and Google Books in general.
Firstly, I had what I would categorise as a high percentage of matches which were incorrect. For example just matching completely incorrect books or stuff like a poster than went with the book or a display bin of 12 books. Secondly, I also had somewhere in the region of 15% not found. Nearly all my books are fairly modern fiction and have ISBNs.
From this I conclude that Google has light coverage of popular fiction from some (most?) UK publishers. Those that it did find, didn't have any preview - so the only benefit would be the google links to reviews and other web locations.
So for me although the theory is way cool the reality is still flawed. Of course your mileage (and library) may vary.
I absolutely wouldn't do it.I don't give Google any cookies that I can avoid (although I note that in order to comment on this blog you are required to give blogger a cookie in order to get a captcha to work). Their privacy policy is appalling; they make absolutely no commitments to delete personal information which they might later be required to share with law enforcement agencies. In fact, they make no commitments to not using personal information for their own purposes. Unless a company anonymizes their gathered data, I see absolutely no reason to trust them.
What with the text mining they do of Gmail messages, and the enormous amount of information Google already knows about people's online habits from Web search cookies in the cookies they receive via Google adwords, I am extremely suspicious of them.
So thank you for asking, and I would put in a vote for a resounding no.
I would definitely be for this if it was on an opt-in basis. Those that want it can have it but by default, it doesn't happen.
Since people seem to be divided (some with fairly strong opinions) as to whether or not they would do it, would it be possible to make it optional?
Nooooooo! Absolutely no!
Yes, Google has a weak privacy policy -- but no more weak than most big-time online services (LT being an Oasis of sanity).
That said, I feel the benefits, just in terms of expanding the realm of book-lovin', more than outweighs the risks. I vote yes, with the note that I'd still like to have "fully" private works in a library, ones that no one can see (but that can count in aggregate processes).
I don't want to link my LT account to Google either.
Absolutely, unequivocally not. I don't trust Google's privacy policy, and there's no reason to hand them more information on a silver platter than what they're getting already.
I vote yes.
Google can offer a lot of (maybe innovative) information (search, reviews, maps).
Data correctness is an issue though.
A question - would we keep our existing LT usernames? Because I don't want to have to change my LT username to match my Google screen name. This would be fairly important.
It should be an opt-in option if done, and definitely not an opt-out. Those who want to should be able to, but those who don't should absolutely not have to think about it being done at all.
I think it sounds like a marvelous idea... Although I am a little concerned about privacy, I don't think Google wants to harm. They just want to make money and help people too. I might be an optimist, but I believe there is a desire to help people beyond the money making aspects.
Zoe, Just speculating but I would imagine that some additional information, no change to LT information, would have to be provided in our profile. This would accomplish the opt-in. Don't provide the info. and you are not in.
I would not do this.
I REALLY wouldn't like being required to have a Google/Blogger account (or for that matter a gmail account, which I do have) to take full advantage of LT.
Because of what I do for a living, I happen to know a little bit about the direction search engines are going with individual targeting of results, and why, and am unhappy with the idea of my library being used as another source for this. If this happened and weren't opt-in it would make me take my library private.
A tentative 'yes' from me. But only if you're planning to do the same with the Internet Archive and Microsoft Book Search. Google isn't the only player in this field and LibraryThing should keep the (small c) catholic attitude it's had so far.
Google's policies are atrociously vague, and I do not like them. I certainly would not voluntarily give them information, and actively take measures to prevent them from taking info that's ceded in casual browsing. I really would rather not have them involved.
Personally, I don't have a problem with it, but I hope that when it happens you can explain why the data has to be connected to our account, rather than being connecting to the book or work.
It seems to me that the greatest value would be to provide a link from the work to the text on google (yes, the work, not the book - though I guess that would not be useful for translatons), and then link from each members account to the work. Then this whole discussion would be moot.
Quick comments:
We can connect works to Google easily and without Google having to know anything about anything.
The question is whether we can search your *library*. At present, Google does not provide a way to search a list of books, except for the My Library feature. To use My Library you need to have a Google account.
I like the idea of a link for each book (work) taking me over to the extra features of Google Books, but do not see a need to link up accounts. Of course, I rarely need to search the actual content of my personal books which are mostly modern novels, and that would not be available as full text from Google anyway.
No, thank you.
Total Information Awareness and 100 years out the window for a unified search?
It's no coincidence that both you and Blyberg were essentially given a "cease and desist."
Just a simple question: You know Maps is derived from Keyhole, a NRO and CIA project, right?
And how would it be useful to let Google destroy LibraryThing by making it a subsidiary of its substandard scanning project?
Please fight the good fight. What you're doing matters.
Ok with me to make this an optional feature.
I already "self-censor" my collection on LibraryThing anyway to exclude books that no longer represent who I am or what I find interesting, as well as books that I really don't want anyone to know I own (i.e. James Patterson novels) so the privacy issue is moot. It would be a useful feature.
There's not enough detail here to fully suss out the project. However, a couple of points.
(1) Definitely should be opt-in (per k.g. schneider)
(2) Comparable options for any online search indexing services should be available (per ms molly)
(3) The information available to Google should be limited and restricted in several ways.
a) opt-in
b) very limited set of data available to google -- certainly NOT all the data we add to LT; just the title/authors that you're adding to the system for searching
More thoughts:
Assuming that the LT/google connection does something like this:
* log onto LT; check "search google index"; LT/google asks for your google ID/password; google/LT scans your LT catalog for title/author/isbn & dumps into your google collection (presumably NOT overwriting what you have separately added into "google collection"); and flags each item in LT with the right google id.
* Then periodically LT should poll google, or ask you to check "update google index", and then send the no-google-id books back to google to update any search index.
This looks like LT is helping people to build google collections, and incorporating some google search features into the LT system.
In this way, it strikes me as akin to the "search your address book for other contacts" feature -- you're giving one system the ability to search another system for information. So long as the user is in control of what is done with the data, I think it's okay. That might suggest that users doing a "click to search/index in google" need to get a very brief & readable notice that this builds a database of information on a third-party site, and the third-party site targets ads to the user; with a click for more info including links to google's TOS, privacy policy, and so on. The key is a brief & readable notice ....
And I would assume LT should write this in a modular fashion, to facilitate similar connections with other available systems (e.g., OpenLibrary).
I would be *very* leery if google gained access via this system to data put by users into LT, OTHER than the necessary/basic information to build the LT catalog.
Umm, more briefly:
I think the key is to treat it like an add-on, like the links to swap sites are now, rather than incorporating it into google in some more serious fashion.
I'm with the nay-sayers.
I don't want Google searches prying into what I read-- even if it did mean convenient searching on my library. There are good reasons public libraries don't make a person's reading history public.
I would rather see Library Thing do its own, wonderfully independent thing.
We can connect works to Google easily and without Google having to know anything about anything.
Can we do just that? :)
Could someone explain to someone who has never used google books before what linking the accounts would mean?
The way I understand it, I would be able to search the content of "my books", excluding all other books.
Without linking, I could "only" search all books or single books on google, but have to remember myself if it's on my shelve or not. correct?
If that's right, the price is waaay to high for me. Where's the real everyday use for all the hassle? If tim doesn't get some serious $$$ out of this, I don't want it.
Ha. I'm going to start using that line around the house. On taking out the garbage, for example.
As long as it's opt-in for each user (extra credit: opt-out-per-book), I don't mind having LibraryThing be my primary store of data and have it echoed onto Google. It'd also be good to have a way of manually inputting the Google Books link for a book, so if I have a book that no one else on LibraryThing has ever told Google about, I can still link it up to the Google Books record.
No, thanks. Not interested, even though I already have Gmail and Google Groups accounts.
If you do implement it, I hope it's opt-in (not opt-out). And I agree with Ms. Molly's comment that LT shouldn't privilege Google over Internet Archive and other search/storage sites. I confess I'm not sure how the hookup with IA would work, but I'd feel better about the whole thing if it weren't just benefiting Google (as I see it).
I'm not interested in any Google functionality. I would prefer LT resources to be focused on features I have requested in the past, like wishlists.
I'm not philosophically opposed to it, but at this point don't see it as something I'd use a lot. I'd probably opt in, at least for the chance to play with it and see if I changed my mind about usefulness (all those pre-1920 science books on my shelf . . .) .
That said, I'd be in favor only if it's an opt-in and if it functioned as an add-on . . . i.e. didn't materially alter the day-to-day experience of using LT.
Thanks for asking!
No, no, no and NO. *deletes angry rant*
Only if there are real benefits to LibraryThing and the option is to opt-in. It's your business and your question is, for me as a user, part of the value of this site. You've created a place where we're asked to participate. We can currently add Google Books to the 'Find At' sidebar and reach a search box for individual titles in one click. The gain in this new discussion seems to be that we might be able to search everything in our library, that is in Google Books, using a single search. Is Google disclosing the actual percentage of LT works that are supported with full-text?
"We can connect works to Google easily and without Google having to know anything about anything."
I'm with anonymous above -- let's just do this. I'm already uncomfortable with how much information about me (and everyone else) Google has, and I treasure LibraryThing as an honest-to-goodness independent, not-evil site that I use often. Please don't give in.
-vorare
Well.... I personally wouldn't want to do it, wouldn't want Google in any way linked to my library. Therefore, this should definitely be an opt-in thing, so those who don't want to don't have to. But I don't even have a Goggle account, so I don't need to worry about it.... right?
As long as it is optional and doesn't take a lot of your development time from interesting 100% LT features, why not.
I guess I really just don't see what kind of payoff there is to balance giving out our personal information. I am personally someone that relies heavily on google. They are my primary e-mail, homepage, search engine, and other things too. I understand that they are constantly collecting information about me to be used (hopefully only) to market products to me in an unobtrusive fashion. I see it as a risk/return ratio. As of right now, they have yet to make me regret giving them so much information, and I believe they stand by their "do no evil" motto. I believe that the returns for using their e-mail, search, and other features free of charge outweigh the "big-brother" fears so far. However, I just don't feel that LT's search is that bad that it needs to be improved at the cost of even more private information. Just my 2 cents.
I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't mind if LT decided to do this as long as it was 100% the users' choice and nothing got sent to Google unless the users specifically clicked a box saying okay.
However, what if you say yes and change your mind? You can't get that information BACK from Google and I find that to be the problematic point about having personally identifiable information linking my Google info and my LT info.
I'm not sure why you're positioning this as a "we can do this cool thing IFF we form an alliance with Google" the flip tone of the bginning of this post is really a haha-this-is-all-fine intro to a fairly serious topic.
I like LT a lot but it's a business that is looking for a solid sustaining business plan and I'd like you guys to be above board if forming close ties with Google is going to be part of that.
OK, now that I've blown off some steam and had a glass of wine, here are some thoughts:
Opting in is certainly important. I'm not entirely opposed to having this available to those users who want it, provided the scope is limited to those books they chose to include. As a business matter, LibraryThing has to go where the needs/wants are (or create the needs/wants), and the LT community is smart enough to accept this, even if begrudgingly. It is in our interests for this site to succeed.
I don't have any rabid hatred of Google. I depend on them as a reliable search engine, email provider and chat provider. I trust them to keep safe the limited amount of personal information I provide them.
However, the privacy concerns with the suggested arrangement are overwhelming. The drive towards consumer-tailored marketing lacks one thing: compiled information with the kinds of comsumer-defined values that LibraryThing members add. B&N, Amazon and my local used book retailer all have some idea of my interests based on my purchase history, but giving a substantive catalogue of my books, my views on the relationships among those books, and the relative values I assign to those books to a third party retailer is unthinkable. Whereas LibraryThing takes my catalogue, tags, and (one day) ratings and put them to uses that benefit me and my interests, a third party retailer is beholden to its investors and the profits they can turn from my information. That Amazon invests in Shelfari speaks to the power and profit this information holds. What does Google want?
Let's be clear. This is a tool for users, not a plot to let Google gain control over our lives. All Tim is suggesting is a tool that allows individuals who opt-in to export the libraries into Google books simply and easily, and possibly once they have done so,to search their books on Google from the LT site.
This is no more dangerous than users exporting via ISBN and importing into Google Books, which some (including me) already do.
Just like the current export feature, those who don't want it don't need to use it.
lquilter, here's the rub:
You say "so long as the user is in control of what is done with the data, I think it's okay."
But once someone else has your data, the cat is out of the bag, and even if their privacy policy is currently agreeable there's no guarantee that they won't change it in the future, even for a corporation whose current motto is "don't be evil".
Yes, yes, please yes.
I'm going to be putting my books on Google book search. I think this connection is a natural and useful extension of LT. It will bring a different aspect to it. I do agree the functionality should be extended to other book digitization sites (MSFT, Project Wittenberg, Project Gutenberg, CCEL.org and the other sites out there) so we can have access to as much as possible. I don't know how easy that would be but I think it would be great.
I vote against a definite Google tie-in.
I know the books in my library are already online and open to the public on LT, and if Google really wanted to find out what I read, it wouldn't be too hard. But I presume that with this new tool, like their web search, they would also be tracking what I search for within my books. I'm not comfortable with that.
Being monitored like this totally goes against how I use LT. I don't know that I'd stop using LT if this deal goes through, but I would certainly feel that LT changed from the happy and independent community it is now into just another for-profit, use-at-your-own-risk marketing deal. I know that that's a bit harsh, and LT is a business looking to grow, but I would hate for my idyllic notion of LT to be tarnished.
Regardless, it seems that no matter how you slice this, it would have to be an opt-in deal - either you link your LT account to a Google account or you don't. I personally would not choose to do this.
So, you will be providing all this personal data about your users to a business for the great privilege of giving said business more users and ad revenue. Sorry, but what is the benefit? A press release that says "OMG we partnered with teh Google!!1"?
A deal with LT is probably not that much of a deal for them, but as someone who has been on the other side of the table during a negotiation with Google, remember that "don't be evil" is just a marketing slogan for the proletariat.
I haven't read all the comments but what I have read seems to be a good conversation going on here :)
I'll put in a vote for an option to link your books up. I'm all for data sharing, but It would need to be optional and the ability to hide books would be handy as well...
I was gleeful about adding Google information to my data when this Google business started, but I am taking a sharp second look at what it would be like to link my LT user information to my Google sign-on. My idea of a good solution is for Google to implement a lightweight API that allows the one-sided transfer of information from Google to LibraryThing without the limitations of a screen-scraping widget. But as several people have said in this thread, if you opt in to Google knowing and correlating your Google ID and LT data, you can't opt out if you change your mind. The data becomes Google's, and neither you nor your lawyer is going to get it out of their hands again in a million years; that's basic to their operation, in all their license agreements, standard operating procedure, et cetera.
So, on balance, unless Google gives us a "purge everything" button or the transfer of information from Google to LT is one-way, I say, "Don't do it." It was a neat idea, but it's not worth it.
I'd go for it! It would make my life simpler.
I'm VERY wary, on privacy grounds.
I vote no. Maybe I'm missing something, but I just do not see the point. You can already link to Google Books on the individual Works pages. If I want to search for a specific phrase or what not, I would just use Google Book Search in the first place. I understand the "plus" side of linking with Google would be the ability to search only within the books in your library, but to me that does not justify the time needed to work on and implement this. Google would benefit astronomically more than the LT user from this deal. Google gets all this great massive data from over a quarter million people to chart their sales and make money... and we get to search through the text of an extremely small percentage of our books. That does not add up to me.
There is a saying that goes like this: "If you give the devil your little finger, he will take the whole hand". If LT starts extensive cooperation with Google, how long will it take that LT will be swallowed by Google? There are lots of examples of such development.
My thoughts are like vorare's: "I treasure LibraryThing as an honest-to-goodness independent, not-evil site that I use often. "
This would be very regretable. Considering how many Googa-holes there already are with LT's so-called "private libraries", adding more collaboration would be the last straw. I would remove my data immediately and begin to merely use LT as a look-up site not as a standing catalogue.
I vote No. Leave Librarything as Librarything and independent of this Monster.Google has much too much power already,without it getting its hands on our lovely site.
It was way worse for me than andyl, it managed about 5%.
Also, I don't think I see a 'delete library' option, you can remove a book, but not the whole thing?
I too have reservations about this step. I understand how it is very useful for some but if that step was taken by LT, I believe it should be firmly the members choice to opt in. Not be opted in by LT.
My main concerns are the privacy policy of Google (and other major search providers), including the ability of those who've opted in to opt out later and retrieve the data about them.
Other concerns are around requiring me to set up a gmail account and also maintain yet another account & password that I have to IDM - when that requirement is simply a stepping stone for (to me) currently limited usability or convenience. I understand that Google is a business and why they make this requirement part of their business model, but it's not something I choose as a consumer to take part in.
I work in the edges of the same field Lorax appears to and agree with the assessment where targeted search is going, and a step like this would also make me more inclined to make my library private.
as long as you make it genuinely optional as opposed to embedding more and more new features with google and locking out those who opt out.
why must google colonise every successful idea on the web?
The lack of a "delete" is galling. We don't have one either, however. It just never comes up in that little window in the black ball.
Another vote in the "no" camp.
Being able to search through MY books would be an interesting feature.
I am a bit sceptical, though, about all that data collecting that Google does.
And I am afraid that this might be first (?) signs of LT being sold out to Google or such - I have witnessed what to me seemed the decline of Flickr after it was sold to Yahoo and I would be very unhappy if LT went a similar way. Having said this: please make exporting our data from LT and possibly migrating them somewhere else in case LT gets Flickrized as easy as possible (which will be a matter of fairness).
To sum it up: I´d like to search (though I can do without), I don´t want LT to be sold out to Google and I am wary of data security aspects in this.
Kind regards
Christian (cnrenner)
I can say that there is no substance to the rumor that Google is re-engineering CueCats to beam targeted advertisements onto your bedroom wall.
Thank goodness for that! ;)
Rest easy--they will only beam them onto your living room wall.
Yeah, I don't see any problem if it's an opt-in option. I gave up on most of my internet privacy a long time ago and I predict that in about 50 years "privacy" will be an antiquated term.
In any case, we're not talking about Google buying up LibraryThing or harvesting our private data without our knowledge. If I've already chosen to let Google see my furry searches, then I don't think there's anything there's anything in my Library that I'm too worried about them seeing :P
If it was optional, well, I have no problems with giving people the option. If the integration with Google was something every LT member had to do, I would consider whether I should stop using LT... I get nervous about one site/group having tons of different types of information about me. (It doesn't help that I use an alias on LT that I'd rather not have linked to my real name.)
This comment has been removed by the author.
At least, unlike, Shelfari, google does answer their mail. :)
Google Book Search
to me
Hello,
Thank you for your email. I understand that you'd like to delete your My
Library. Currently, the only way to do so is to remove all of the books
that you've added to your My Library so far.
I hope that this information is useful to you. I encourage you to let us
know if you have any further comments about Google Book Search. As this is
still a young program, new features are under consideration and your
feedback is very helpful.
Sincerely,
Dan
The Google Book Search Team
Please, please, PLEASE, NO! I detest Google's privacy policies and I deeply fear that any relationship with them would lead to a slippery slope that would give them too much sway in all things LT. Please, no. I'm begging. It would kill me to see another wonderful idea sucked up by the Google hegemony. Please, no.
I would be okay with something of the form of a simple way to import your LT library to Google Books, because I can see how full-text library search would be very useful.
I would not be okay with it going any farther than that. I don't see why it would need to go any farther than that. Honestly, I'm already very much disliking the compromises you've had to make to use Amazon data (and I'd love a way to quickly find and replace all the Amazon covers in my library). I like LT for LT. If I wanted go be using Google, I'd be using Google instead - and mark me down as someone else who's deeply uncomfortable with Google and privacy issues and conglomeration issues, even if I do mostly trust them to mean well.
They already gobbled up one independent site I adored and made it an indistinguishable part of the Google brand. I know you'll be careful about that, but I really, really want LT to stay LT.
And to stay one place that I can log into without Google trying to make me sign in on their account. :/ (Even if they try to make me do it to post blog comments already. Which is annoying enough.)
I love the idea and have no problem with it whatsoever. Privacy shouldn't be an issue, because Google doesn't care about you except insofar as you're a potential consumer, and insofar as you're a potential consumer Google doesn't care who you are.
This also poses no threat to LT's autonomy or identity or anything else, any more than the "compromises" LT has made with Amazon (and I honestly have no idea what those are) have ruined the site.
I want to search my library, and by hook or by crook I'll do it. If I can't do it through LT, I won't do it through LT. But I'll still do it. I imagine many other people feel the same way.
I missed this discussion, but what is the extra a Librarything user would get when in some way in the background is a link to Google Books ?
Interesting to notice the absence of any substantial comment by Tim about all the privacy worries overwhelmingly expressed in this blog. Doesn't he care? is Google's $$$$$$ check just too good to take members worries into account?
I definitely vote against this move. I can't believe LT is even considering this. I am a google user (search) but only because there are almost no alternatives with the same quality in those fields. Do you people really want to end up having to use one and only one company's tools? Some might say they don't care (microsoft has that kind of monopole in his fields) but since google's business is mainly information gathering and SELLING and considering its well-known user -unfriendly privacy policies, I'd rather like to avoid as much as possible having all my information in google's hands.
Furthermore, I do agree with people wondering why so much time and energy is being spent on those projects of rather small effective use (I think I can count on the fingers of my hands the amount of books in my catalog that would actually be "in-text" searchable thanks to google and I'm guessing that would apply to the catalogs of most LT users), when all this time and energy could be spent actually improving LT's features as well as adding new ones, ones that have been asked for over and over again. I remember having read some 4 weeks ago that in one week (that would have been 3 weeks ago) we would at at last see collections and wishlists & co being implemented... still waiting.
Anyway I think "nathan" sums it up rather well.
I'd rather not let Google see the books that I want to read, thanks all the same. Hopefully this would be something that you'd opt-in to use.
Given the appalling quality of the matching hit-rate when I submitted my list, I'd say NO!
Hold off until Google sorts out their own data first before donating all the data capital that has been built up in LT. Our data (if we were allowed to agree on definitive data, rather than having to rely upon LT suggestions) could be so much better than Google's, that they'd come running to your door begging, rather than them holding the strings.
At any rate, surrendering even a small portion of LT libraries through an opt-in scheme before Google have something better to offer you seems a waste.
I can see that this would be a powerful selling point for LT to sell itself to a new academic audience, but I'm afraid I think the market price of LT data will only go up, and it's too early to sell.
In a word, no.
Instead, how about LT create and distribute to members distributed database structures and related code so members can run their own databases locally, and link to upload, edit, delete or share with LT only, or with others, too, as the member sees fit. If the member runs, for example, a Linux server, it could be hooked to LT full-time, and retain data locally. Or upload to LT for better system performance, as now.
The bottom line is book owners need to control their own data. Technology to do that will be much appreciated. Relinquishing control will lead to remorse, regret, and recrimination, all of which we can intelligently avoid.
Seems like an alright idea to me. One thing about Google that appeals to me is that I can access just about everything I need with one service and username. I use Gmail, Google Webmasters Tools, iGoogle, Google Search Engine, Blogger, Google Docs and Spreadsheets, Google Pages. Just about everything.
Google and LibraryThing would be an awesome combination, but I'm not sure selling out would be a great idea at this stage. Stay independent and keep up the awesome work.
"What do people feel about this? Would you do it."
I don't like it and wouldn't do it. I don't want a Google account, but was forced to get one for my blog. I really hope I don't have to use a google account name/pass to use LT in the future. I really hate how Flickr and Yahoo linked themselves together (I do not actually use the same account name on both, and it is a pain to log out of one and into the other as it wants me to use one account name on both, and locks me in to that account on both websites).
And here I have to sign in with a google account to respond. I am really beginning to dislike Google and Yahoo taking over everything (Blogger.com in this case here). Ack and it won't let me sign in .. . dang stupid Google.
I do think Google is markedly less evil than most companies their size, but I trust LT more. Clearly, a lot of LT users feel the same way.
I don't think the feature you've actually proposed poses any threat: if folks don't want to give Google their info, they don't and all is well. But I also don't see that it would add much value to LT.
Links to known matches on Google Books like those you've already implemented capture a good chunk of the potential value. It's easy enough to click on one of those links and add the book in question to our Google Books profile, if we want to tell Google about that particular book. I might also take advantage of the new feature you're describing, but it doesn't really excite me.
What *would* excite me would be more support for projects that are actively good, rather than companies that are simply not evil. For example: instead of using blogger.com, why not use your own blog software and participate in the reCAPTCHA project? (See http://recaptcha.net/ for more info.)
For that matter, integration with services like EconLit (see http://www.econlit.org/ for more info) would also provide much more value to me than integration with Google Books. (I recognize that this would be a bigger challenge, though.)
I love this idea! I do, however, think that it should be optional since so many people worry over Googles privacy policies.
I'm a little surprised no one has mentioned this yet:
the account that unites GMail, Blogger, Google Reader, Google Talk, Orkut, and the rest
You mean the account which connects a whole lot of things which Google owns?
Remember, Tim, Google has a three-word motto. "Publicly traded company."
I'm wary, not on privacy grounds (I believe pretty much everything I do on the internet can already be dug up by someone if they spend enough time and money), but because I don't want this to take from the focus of librarything. If it can be done without making things any more complicated (logins, etc.), I'd be in favour, but I suspect it would just add a lot of bloat to the librarything website, without any real benefits. After all, if I want to read one of my books, I'll take it off the shelf and read it.... As someone commented above, far better we get things like wishlists, that improve the key areas of librarything..... But then again, if it's just an opt-in option for those who are interested, why not?
it's easy enough to just set up a 'my library' in google book search and keep the lists separate. they currently have a limit of around 600 books per user, though. i vote no, even though as a university library i have no privacy issues. i'd rather see librarything concentrate on improving their product, instead of improving google's.
I am on-board with the nay-sayers.
I absolutely would NOT want to link in my google account with LT.
A lot of people have already pointed out that this move would only hand over a lot information to google and not too much benefit to the LT users.
(beware of the company that is trying to shove 'we do no evil' message down everyone's throat).
however, you can offer the opt-in to the people who are ready to sell their soul for the sake of one click signon convenience! :)
why involve your google account at all... how about simply using a greasemonkey script that runs on library thing to grab the ibsn number off your book list, and spawn a popup to search google books. if you use the syntax isbn:12345 queryword that searches within the book.
i'd love to write the script.. but maybe someone else can try too.. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/748
there are already a few library thing greasemonkey scripts http://userscripts.org/scripts/search?q=librarything
That's what the Book Search Search did—except using JS a lot, without GM.
Google is evil, please don't do that. I love LT, I used to love Google but not anymore.
Post a Comment
<< Home