Live data from Hacker News

Google Scholar PDF Reader

scholar.googleblog.com

131–140 of 165 posts

Re: Google Scholar PDF Reader

#131
post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scholar is heavily used internally, it’s unlikely to be discontinued even if it has never brought any money to Google.

Google Reader and RSS feeds were also heavily used internally :(

What replaced it - Google Wave ???.

Re: Google Scholar PDF Reader

#132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zotero does a good job at it, doesn't it?

As a daily Zotero user, not really. The nicest thing I can say about it is, it has plugins and is FOSS. Maybe the new 7.0 release will blow me away, but I've been waiting for it to get out of beta forever. More fundamentally, we need to stop disseminating scholarly work as PDFs, a format primarily designed for print. Plain HTML would be an improvement. Even better than HTML would be an extended variant with scholarly…

> As a daily Zotero user, not really. The nicest thing I can say about it is, it has plugins and is FOSS. Maybe the new 7.0 release will blow me away, but I've been waiting for it to get out of beta forever.

Can you elaborate where you think Zotero drops the ball?

Re: Google Scholar PDF Reader

#133
post #109

I've never seen so many light/dark modes before. There's Device Mode, Light Mode, Dark Mode, and Night Mode. AFAICT Device Mode follows the browser/device's current setting, Dark Mode makes the sidebar dark but doesn't change the PDF, and Night Mode darkens both the sidebar and the PDF. I wonder how they decided to have so many modes?

I’ve seen other apps that have Systen, Light, Dark, and “Very Datk” for OLED devices, so it isn’t out of the question

Did you put "Very Datk" in quotes because it was spelled like that where you saw it? Or is it just "Very Dark" and it's quotes because it doesn't fully imply what you get?

Re: Google Scholar PDF Reader

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a daily Zotero user, not really. The nicest thing I can say about it is, it has plugins and is FOSS. Maybe the new 7.0 release will blow me away, but I've been waiting for it to get out of beta forever. More fundamentally, we need to stop disseminating scholarly work as PDFs, a format primarily designed for print. Plain HTML would be an improvement. Even better than HTML would be an extended variant with scholarly…

So I'm a researcher that almost always uses pdfs... Does HTML have the reproducibility that PDF promises? My feeling is that if I store a PDF, it'll look the same in a decade. But is HTML the same way? It seems like it relies on the web browser and many other things... How would one manage things like images and gifs? Is there a way to keep everything into one HTML file that's easily shareable and feels secure?

I explored tools to export/interchange PDF to HTML in the KnowledgeGarden app, but the results were not optimal, suffering from non-standard layout and poor typesetting of equations. Publishers of scholarly articles generate web pages of papers, but they're not replicas of PDF files.

Re. self-contained HTML (and slightly off-topic), look at TiddlyWiki, which contains data/code/layout all in one interactive, local or hosted HTML. Extensibility, plugins, and community of contributors are some key highlights, among others.

[1] https://www.tiddlywiki.com

Re: Google Scholar PDF Reader

#135
post #129
post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In an effort to accelerate the development life-cycle, Google will now release sunset announcements before the product release.

I saw that announcement, but I thought they changed their mind about a week before it was announced?

They're sunsetting the sunset?

Re: Google Scholar PDF Reader

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a daily Zotero user, not really. The nicest thing I can say about it is, it has plugins and is FOSS. Maybe the new 7.0 release will blow me away, but I've been waiting for it to get out of beta forever. More fundamentally, we need to stop disseminating scholarly work as PDFs, a format primarily designed for print. Plain HTML would be an improvement. Even better than HTML would be an extended variant with scholarly…

So I'm a researcher that almost always uses pdfs... Does HTML have the reproducibility that PDF promises? My feeling is that if I store a PDF, it'll look the same in a decade. But is HTML the same way? It seems like it relies on the web browser and many other things... How would one manage things like images and gifs? Is there a way to keep everything into one HTML file that's easily shareable and feels secure?

Machines and humans can both easily use HTML/XML. Extracting information from PDF’s is so much harder that there’s deep learning products dedicated to doing it. They still make mistakes, too.

I’d much rather have something akin to the CHM files where everything I need is in one file, easy to analyze, and has good readers.

Re: Google Scholar PDF Reader

#137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a daily Zotero user, not really. The nicest thing I can say about it is, it has plugins and is FOSS. Maybe the new 7.0 release will blow me away, but I've been waiting for it to get out of beta forever. More fundamentally, we need to stop disseminating scholarly work as PDFs, a format primarily designed for print. Plain HTML would be an improvement. Even better than HTML would be an extended variant with scholarly…

So I'm a researcher that almost always uses pdfs... Does HTML have the reproducibility that PDF promises? My feeling is that if I store a PDF, it'll look the same in a decade. But is HTML the same way? It seems like it relies on the web browser and many other things... How would one manage things like images and gifs? Is there a way to keep everything into one HTML file that's easily shareable and feels secure?

I'd like to see PDFs move to Computational Notebooks. One can dream.

Re: Google Scholar PDF Reader

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But did you think about the environment? Why don't you by a new device every 2 years with Lithium battery and full of non recyclable plastic in it" ... is what I get told all the time.

With the typical reading volume of an academic and the amount of plastic in my toner cartridges, I'm not sure paper comes out ahead in that comparison.

A high yield toner cartridge can print between 3000 and 8000 pages of text [1]. Average number of pages in a scientific manuscript is 10 [2]. This means that it would take 300 to 800 printed scientific papers to deplete one cartridge. I would have to assume that a single toner cart is not the same amount of waste as a reading device just due to the recyclability of toner carts, but it is up to you how to count them. If I was going to pull a number out of my ass, I would say 10 carts would be equal to one reading device with battery. Let's go low-end and pick 300 papers, which means you would need to print 3000 full scientific manuscripts to equal the waste of one reading device. How many do you read in two years?

[1] https://www.brother-usa.com/supplies/ink-and-toner#sort=rele...

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3987331/

Re: Google Scholar PDF Reader

#139
post #101

Already counting the days until this inevitably gets killed. I've been burned too many times to rely on Google for anything, except tracking me and pushing ads, which they indeed do better every day.

I wonder if their real intent is to gather training data on which parts of papers are considered important by readers, and which topics are related to each other.

Re: Google Scholar PDF Reader

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no way I can perceive reading on an expensive device as more comfortable than paper. Paper is fairly cheap, lightweight and resilient; I can carry it around, fold it, toss it aside, sit on it by accident while thinking, annotate it with scribbles, and pour coffee on it with aplomb and finesse. I can flip it, half-tear it in anger, drool on it when I reach my brain capacity. I can take it hiking with me witho…

"But did you think about the environment? Why don't you by a new device every 2 years with Lithium battery and full of non recyclable plastic in it" ... is what I get told all the time.

In my experience those people don't even talk about ink, it's all about paper. They must think that you get just a few sheets of paper for a single tree or something like that, when in reality you get like 10 000 sheets of paper for one averagish tree. And those trees are not rare or anything like that, and the process of making paper is nowhere near as bad as electronics industry. Using paper is as ecological as it gets.
Post reply on HN