This is a good example of how analyzing large amounts of data can give us insight we have not had before.

It is important to keep this in mind when using massive amounts of data to an interface.

This is a very important piece of information to know about the data. I wonder what would have happened if they did not know this.

I wonder if the team considered creating their own widget and would it have been better for the project's goal of being used by outside sources or worse.

This shows the integrity a digital historian needs to have. It would be easy in large data sets to cut corners.

I find it so interesting that a large number of people involved in the project are computer scientists.

These are the kinds of things we need to start seeing. A universal standard of digitizing will be incredibly useful in moving forward. However would this cause isolation of data that can't match the standard? Would some data be left out?

I know that a goal of linguistics is to find all the quantifiable similarities across languages. Using data mining techniques seems like an incredibly useful tool for the field

The age of abundance. It makes me question what is going to happen in this new age as all these new techniques are coming out. Myself I still find the most reliable sources are printed ones books and journals. Do you think that as we progress further and further into this age of technology in History will there be many who cling to the older methods or will historians and academics see the potentially paradigm shifting benefits of technology. Will we leave something behind moving to technology.

This is an excellent opportunity for digital history. A program that can collect data for the same geographical site even though it has been called different names in the past.

I think this is a very important part to include in the article as user error in using a tool.

It makes sense that the largest percentage of people are those in acedemia and students. It would be very difficult to make Bentham sexy to anyone not already interesting in history.

This plays well into our course where every final assignment will be a collection of everyones work and annotations the work of a community not a single person. Where in most other classes our work is individual like essays or tests we now are a class developing projects together while developing our individual understanding of digital history.

This is something I mentioned in another annotation. I see the Macroscope as a very strong and powerful tool but it can also be dangerous in creating the wrong impressions or flat out being used to futher peoples own biases.

A powerful conclusion. I think this post touches on many good points about not getting lost in the data and being both distant as millions of words and as close to moles on the skin to the history we are studying and using both to better understand the past

I have felt this way studying history for a long time.

I do not belive that it is the questions being asked but the way we can answer them. The biggest questions of history have alwasy been what happened followed by why did it happen. Technology helps us better answer those questions not ask new ones

This is one of the most exciting things that digital history presents the ability to look at new avenues in history to better understand the past

I do not know what this means

I like that he touches on the value of using both micro and macro to create the strongest statement possible.

This is a major problem to me for how digital history could be represented incorrectly either by fault or on purpose. Large data sets being broken down into easily understood snipits can lead to biases.

This is an example for our course about productive failing.

As an Archeologist it is very interesting to create visual display from data sets on a mass scale which could be useful for predicting where artifacts or ruins could be uncovered.

I see a problem arising where data (which always has the risk of being misinterpreted or misrepresented) can be used incorrectly on a much larger scale.

Creating historians who are skilled in both Macro and Micro history is very useful and seems to me like the future of history.

I am interested to see this idea expanded upon in this course. The difference between standard practise and our method of developing our understanding.

I agree to be a nice guy at all times

Github Domain

I have a twitter account but do not use it very often. This will be a chance to use it again.

I am sure this will be an exciting read... being from the Ottawa region it will be fun studying something close to home.

That would be me.

Was unfamiliar with this term. Googled it and realized doing so is participating in digital history. Neat moment for me.

is 'regular' history not also in principle reproducible. There are mountains of reproduced textbooks and historical writings. Am I missing the definition of reproducible?

I think this is an incredibly important part of history in general. Throughout the history of history there have been many failures. It seems to me that with such a grand scale as digital history can achieve the failures can be just as grand.

This idea both excites and terrifies me. Seems overwhelming to be able to read thousands of documents but am excited to learn how technology can help us do this.

I find this statement particularly interesting since google is such a powerful entity in the study of history.