yes, I got the same question here. There is too little books in GB provide
full text and partial preview

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Godmar Back <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> ps: the distribution of the full text availability for the sample
> considered was as follows:
>
> No preview: 797 (93.5%)
> Partial preview: 53 (6.2%)
> Full text: 2 (0.2%)
>
>  - Godmar
>
> On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Godmar Back <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >  to examine the usability of Google's book viewability API when lookup
> >  is done via ISBN, we did some experiments, the results of which I'd
> >  like to share. [1]
> >
> >  For 1000 randomly drawn ISBN from 3,192,809 ISBN extracted from a
> >  snapshot of LoC's records [2], Google Books returned results for 852
> >  ISBN.  We then downloaded the page that was referred to in the
> >  "info_url" parameter of the response (which is the "About" page Google
> >  provides) for each result.
> >
> >  To examine whether Google retrieved the correct book, we checked if
> >  the Info page contained the ISBN for which we'd searched. 815 out of
> >  852 contained the same ISBN. 37 results referred to a different ISBN
> >  than the one searched for.  We examined the 37 results manually: 33
> >  referred to a different edition of the book whose ISBN was used to
> >  search, as judged by comparing author/title information with OCLC's
> >  xISBN service. (We compared the author/title returned by xISBN with
> >  the author/title listed on Google's book information page.)  4 records
> >  appeared to be misindexed.
> >
> >  I found the results (85.2% recall and >99% precision, if you allow for
> >  the ISBN substitution; with a 3.1% margin of error) surprisingly high.
> >
> >   - Godmar
> >
> >  [1] http://top.cs.vt.edu/~gback/gbs-accuracy-study/<http://top.cs.vt.edu/%7Egback/gbs-accuracy-study/>
> >  [2] http://www.archive.org/details/marc_records_scriblio_net
> >
>



--
Zhx
XmuLibrary