Whole nine yards - another 1964 cite? 
Posted: 29 October 2007 09:34 PM   [ Ignore ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2344
Joined  2007-01-30

Or is it? One can never be sure with a Google Books search, the publication in question has a 1957 date, but I think it’s the reference ‘Symposium issue 1964’ that’s the key date.

Anyway, here it is:

Technical Review - The Society of Experimental Test Pilots

This program was unique in a couple of ways. Number one, it was the one and only military spin evaluation of the TF41 engine and, number two, it was the only spin evaluation of an asymmetrically loaded A-7. These results are all going into a common report when the whole nine yards gets wrapped ............... [caetera desunt]

BTW the thread title refers to Samclem’s recent turning up of the phrase in the April 25th 1964 edition of the Tucson Daily Citizen.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2007 10:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2853
Joined  2007-01-31

Well, it says “Symposium issue 1964- called also Report to the aeospace profession.” That hyphen suggests to me a series of years beginning in 1964 and continuing to the present.  I take it to mean that the annual symposium issue is known by the variant title “Report to the aerospace profession”.

I think the most probable date for that particular volume is given where it says “v.10 1970/1971” Did you not notice that?

By searching on “Experimental” I get a snippet of the scanned title page, in which “1971” is visible as a handwritten notation.

Edit: better still, by searching on “copyright” I get a snippet saying “copyright 1971 The Society of Experimental Test Pilots.”

So much for that.

[ Edited: 29 October 2007 10:54 PM by Dr. Techie ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2007 11:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2344
Joined  2007-01-30

Doh! I completely missed that date.

I’d set the search parameters to exclude results post-1964, but there are so many dates associated with each hit that it makes the setting of such date parameters rather a pointless exercise.

[ Edited: 29 October 2007 11:41 PM by aldiboronti ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2007 05:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4790
Joined  2007-01-03

The dates in Google Books are horribly inaccurate. All the serial publications are dated as of the first issue. And they’re also very sloppy about conflating different scans. Often entirely different publications will be electronically “bound” together, with the date of publication that comes first--sometimes a century or more off.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2007 06:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3525
Joined  2007-01-29

I simply don’t understand why Google Books is so badly done.  Google has a reputation, deserved in most cases, for doing things well.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2007 09:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Rank
Total Posts:  5
Joined  2007-10-29

It never occurred to me that the dates in Google Books might be incorrect. They have a feedback link at the bottom of every page for flagging errors. They anticipate incorrect page numbers as a possibility, but not incorrect dates.

Is this a problem common to book searches like Amazon Search-Inside or Microsoft Live Search Books as well?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2007 10:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  236
Joined  2007-02-13

I have used Google Books quite a bit in my baseball research.  Bound periodicals seem to be a particular problem, sometimes giving the earliest date of that bound volume and sometimes giving the date of the first issue.  Discrete books are usually given the correct date, but I always confirm it.

It looks to me like they rush the job, going for quantity with poor quality control.  On the other hand, their search engine is better than that on Microsoft’s equivalent.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2007 11:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4790
Joined  2007-01-03

On the whole, Google Books is a very badly planned and executed project. They seem to have leaped into it without researching what would be useful to researchers. Another common dating “error” is that they don’t distinguish the dates of various editions. They often give the publication date of an edition, without indicating the date of the original. And they’ve got poor quality control on the scans. They are good regarding image quality, but the cataloging of the images is abysmal.

Also infuriating is their complete bollixing up copyrighted v. public domain works. Works that are clearly in the public domain are often treated as if they were under copyright and vice versa.

Nor have they seemed to be doing anything to correct the mistakes. This appears to be a great idea that they are completely ruining, not just for themselves, but also for everyone else that follows with similar projects.

Profile
 
 
   
 
 
‹‹ Suck it up      Vanessa Collingridge's accent ››