2 of 2
2
gunk
Posted: 25 September 2007 08:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  590
Joined  2007-02-22

Yes, after a little effort, I managed to find a date for the journal in question :

http://www.google.co.uk/books?id=a4m4hxA2_qkC&q=contents&pgis=1#search

After searching vor various terms and checking the page numbers, I think this is all the same volume, but I can’t be certain.

It passes the odd quarter-hour, the game of persuading Google Books to give you a date....

Edit: pipped by Doc T

Edit 2:  The copy of “The Rudder” in question appears to be 1955 - at least a search for “1955”, brought up a picture of the “masthead”.  Why is it that Google books will show you only three snippets and then some, or even all of them do not show the term you were looking for?  Is the search facility deliberately broken for copyright reasons?  It’s OK if you are treating the hunt for a date like some literary form of Sudoku, but otherwise it must be pretty frustrating.

[ Edited: 25 September 2007 09:09 AM by bayard ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 September 2007 01:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2860
Joined  2007-01-31

Man, I hate ProQuest.

I was trying to search the NYT and WSJ historical archives for the word “gunk”, and getting more than a hundred thousand hits, even with the date restricted to pre-1930.  Naturally I can’t examine them all, and the pages come up as images that can’t be searched except by eye, and past experience has taught me that the desired word is often absent, but I didn’t realize why before.  I tried searching on “gunk” just in the titles, and got dozens of hits: headlines containing “muck”, “slime”, “goo”, etc., but not “gunk”.

Evidently, EVEN WHEN YOU PUT THE SEARCH TERM IN QUOTES, which the online documentation says searches for the “exact phrase”, it runs it through some sort of thesaurus and returns stories containing any word it considers a synonym.  And there’s apparently no way to turn it off. 

Man, I hate ProQuest.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 September 2007 02:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1373
Joined  2007-01-29

goes into a deep and lasting sulk*

*OED: Source uncertain; perhaps related to SULKE a. Cf. NFris. (Sylt) sulke

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 September 2007 08:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1297
Joined  2007-03-21

I tried searching on “gunk” just in the titles, and got dozens of hits: headlines containing “muck”, “slime”, “goo”, etc., but not “gunk”.

Well, Newspaperarchive is the same.  I tried the same search and where it tantalized gunk, the actually image had “Junk”, “sunk”, “gang” and etc.  No “gunk”.  I gave up (but only after an hour).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 September 2007 11:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  590
Joined  2007-02-22

It’s a conspiracy!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2007 01:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2860
Joined  2007-01-31

Well, Newspaperarchive is the same.  I tried the same search and where it tantalized gunk, the actually image had “Junk”, “sunk”, “gang” and etc.  No “gunk”.

Not quite the same.  Those appear to be simple OCR errors (which the ProQuest NYT and WSJ archives are certainly not free of, either).  It’s one thing to have false hits due to unavoidable imperfections in the scanning technology, it’s another for the software to perversely assume that it knows better than you what you are looking for and insist on giving you hits on words it considers synonyms.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2
 
‹‹ Lour      Diegogarcity ››