Half a book is better than none?

I've complained before about GoogleBooks and some of its more, shall we say, problematic scanned texts, but this is taking things to new heights.  Or halves.  (The 1719 first edition has its own problems, but is at least all present and accounted for.)

I know this sounds like carping, and no doubt is carping, but digitization projects like this have concrete ramifications for brick-and-mortar libraries.  A useless online book does not improve on the bound copy!