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 :(
Google Scholar PDF Reader
131–140 of 165 posts
Re: Google Scholar PDF Reader
#132Earlier 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…
Can you elaborate where you think Zotero drops the ball?
Re: Google Scholar PDF Reader
#133I'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
Re: Google Scholar PDF Reader
#134Earlier 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?
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.
Re: Google Scholar PDF Reader
#135Earlier 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?
Re: Google Scholar PDF Reader
#136Earlier 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 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
#137Earlier 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?
Re: Google Scholar PDF Reader
#138Earlier 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.
[1] https://www.brother-usa.com/supplies/ink-and-toner#sort=rele...
Re: Google Scholar PDF Reader
#139Already 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.
Re: Google Scholar PDF Reader
#140Earlier 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.