http://researchfragments.blogspot.com/2023/05/ocr4all-is-better-than-google.html
“OCR4all is better than Google OCR for early modern printed books.
Klaus Graf pointed me to a suggestion from Lajos Adamik on using Google Docs for OCR. It’s a great idea – Google is fast and fairly accurate. For some projects I’d definitely use it.
But not for most early printed books.”
OpenEdition schlägt Ihnen vor, diesen Beitrag wie folgt zu zitieren:
Klaus Graf (31. Mai 2023). “OCR4all is better than Google” Archivalia. Abgerufen am 15. September 2026 von https://doi.org/10.58079/ci04
I completely agree with you. Google also has the “weakness” that you can only convert one image at a time. In addition, the quality of the OCR depends strongly on the print quality of the original, independent of the platform you use. With these limitations, I can still recommend Google with a clear conscience.