I Give Up!

[Gabor]

On Jan 2, 3:28 pm, General Schvantzkoph <schvantzk...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 12:57:06 -0800, rickman wrote:
The spam in Google groups has only gotten worse lately and there seems
to be no end in sight.  This group is getting hard to find the real
posts in and some of the other groups are just plain unusable with five
or ten spam messages to every real message.

Rather than to add spam filters as most newsgroup access providers do,
Google has invented an entirely new interface with an entirely new look,
with the ability to flag a post as spam (or otherwise inappropriate) and
it is hidden from your view.

That would be great, except that the new interface sucks compared to the
old one.  Maybe it is just that I'm used to the old one, but I have
tried the new one in one of the groups I access and I don't seem to be
liking it any more than when I first saw it.

For a company that is so good at search engines, why can't they
understand anything about how newsgroups should work?

Rick

I use news.individual.net, it costs 10 Euros/year. I don't see any spam in
this newsgroup or in any of the Linux newsgroups that I frequent. I use
PAN as a newsreader. Google groups is an awful way to access news groups,
not only is it SPAM ridden but the UI is unusable. You should be using a
real newsreader with a properly filtered news server.

Are there any "real newsreaders" with a web-only interface? I'd pay
good money
for that. If not, I don't want to clutter up my work machine with
more applications
and downloaded news. Google seemed to be the best web interface I
could
find.

-- Gabor

 

[General Schvantzkoph]

On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 08:43:09 -0800, Gabor wrote:

On Jan 2, 3:28 pm, General Schvantzkoph <schvantzk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 12:57:06 -0800, rickman wrote:
The spam in Google groups has only gotten worse lately and there
seems to be no end in sight.  This group is getting hard to find the
real posts in and some of the other groups are just plain unusable
with five or ten spam messages to every real message.

Rather than to add spam filters as most newsgroup access providers
do, Google has invented an entirely new interface with an entirely
new look, with the ability to flag a post as spam (or otherwise
inappropriate) and it is hidden from your view.

That would be great, except that the new interface sucks compared to
the old one.  Maybe it is just that I'm used to the old one, but I
have tried the new one in one of the groups I access and I don't seem
to be liking it any more than when I first saw it.

For a company that is so good at search engines, why can't they
understand anything about how newsgroups should work?

Rick

I use news.individual.net, it costs 10 Euros/year. I don't see any spam
in this newsgroup or in any of the Linux newsgroups that I frequent. I
use PAN as a newsreader. Google groups is an awful way to access news
groups, not only is it SPAM ridden but the UI is unusable. You should
be using a real newsreader with a properly filtered news server.

Are there any "real newsreaders" with a web-only interface? I'd pay
good money
for that. If not, I don't want to clutter up my work machine with more
applications
and downloaded news. Google seemed to be the best web interface I could
find.

-- Gabor

No there aren't any real newsreaders that are web based. However you could
use Thunderbird which combines mail and news.

 

[Frank GOENNINGER]

Brian Drummond <brian_drummond@btconnect.com> writes:

Change is probably inevitable, and maybe it's getting time for Usenet
to go the way of the morse amateur bands, and the telegraph.

Sadly.

- Brian

Actually, signal to noise ratio is still a lot better here in Usenet
newsgroups because it is quite easy to filter spam with bio-visual
methods. It's a bit like morse - this is still quite alive despite the
availability of Internet and other "modern" modes...

73, Frank DG1SBG (ham radio call from Germany)