• http://www.thenerdblurb.com Jeremiah

    You gotta be kidding me!!! I have been looking forward to this “project” for quite some time and I thought what they were essentially doing was gearing up for an attempt at taking on “wikipedia” – head on. I guess they have to many battles to fight right now with Microsoft/Bing, Yahoo, Facebook, and more…

    I think they it might be the right move… I don’t know – just my two cents thrown at it though :-)
    Nice article Matt!

    Jeremiah R.

  • http://www.alexanderchalkidis.com Alexander Chalkidis

    I think it is a simple cost/benefit calculation. Digitizing material is done by Google itself only for high effectivity material like books. These bring them a lot of traffic. I suspect newspaper material was not as useful, especially the older stuff.

    By their nature books tend to have material which is much more compatible with the type of stuff people search for. Google tried newspapers, found it too difficult (publishers here are harder to deal with than old books!) and left it.

    Typical.

  • http://www.nevdull.com Anthony Ortenzi

    While it’s disappointing that the momentum for digitizing archives may slow, Google’s at least being classy about how they spin this down. They’ve provided an example, shown the way, and now move on, having left gifts.

  • http://www.banddirectory.co.uk/ Seb Gibbs

    This was such a good service in that it helps very old documents not get lost for ever in our history. This sort of information Is very useful for documenting historical events for the entire future.

  • http://newspapermap.com N.M.

    Just as we added a historical newspaper layer. Well, there are still some more left for us to plot.
    http://newspapermap.com/

  • http://www.orphanboyfilms.com OBF