For reasons I can't fathom, Internet Archive Scholar got attention today, a mass of it, painting it as a "new" service. Actually, it has been out there for about a year. BUT....
If beautifully structured access to academic citations by the millions is your bag or desperately needed tool, especially ones that are ONLY left in the Wayback Machine, you are in LUCK. And this will be your favorite day. Try it.
@textfiles How does it compare to Google Scholar? Similar name, so I was wondering if it was similar in intent and/or scope.
@textfiles Well of course it's better, that went without saying. No matter what it is, it *has* to be better. We are comparing Internet Archive to Google... There's almost always nothing to worry about as to which of them is better. And honestly, I can't think of a situation Google (as a company) might do a better job of anything the archive does.
@textfiles Can confirm, it is better, but UI/UX takes a bit of getting used to.
@JigmeDatse @textfiles we are a search engine over research publications, so pretty similar to Google Scholar in a lot of ways.
we have no current intention of building high-quality author profile pages, or computing "leaderboard" style citation metrics summaries, which are features of Google Scholar.
one difference is that all of our biblio metadata and code is openly available for reuse, and we have an open search API
@scholar All of those differences sound like positive differences. I did some looking very briefly, and other than being a little unfamiliar, and things working in ways that didn't "feel natural" it was only a few seconds of, "Oh, maybe this works this way" to get what I was wanting.
@JigmeDatse it's better