What's Happened to Google Groups?

[Bill Bowden]

This Google Groups works just like the old
Google Groups (non-Australia) used to work.

One thing I noticed is the posting delay time has been reduced from
several hours to just a couple minutes. I see 34 posts here and only 32
on the old system. It may take 9 hours for this post to show up on the
old system, but it's here immediately.

-Bill

 

[Tim Williams]

"Bob Penoyer" <bob@NOSPAMbobpenoyer.com> wrote in message
news:snbir0l9odjv9gh5llc763pjfpfiam16k2@4ax.com...

Google Groups has changed radically. I used to be able to do a search,
find an indentured list of posts, navigate the posts, easily return to
the search options page, modify the original search terms and begin a
new search. I don't see how to do that now. It appears that Google
Groups (once Deja.com) has been ruined by the "new" version.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.electronics.basic/threads?start=0&ts
c=1

Oddly it shows the latest post at May. They're probably still working kinks
out; RCM shows up-to-date posts (latest 11:24am, two hours ago).

I don't get why people bitch about things that work. It must be they refuse
to accept change and the hardship of getting there, but I'd think people
doing something high level like electronics would be mature enough to accept
it.

Tim

--
"I've got more trophies than Wayne Gretsky and the Pope combined!"
- Homer Simpson
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

 

[Si Ballenger]

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 12:24:00 -0500, "Moneyman"
<goferbroke@millionaire.com> wrote:

All good things come to an end sooner or later. Being they're on the market
now, the ads will have to pay off for the investors, while the informational
use will become less and less, since that involves "work" or "desired"
product which up til now, most likely hasn't paid them a dime. Ten to one,
soon they offer searches on a "subscription" service. Any one care to bet?

There will be life "after" Google. There was before too, with a little leg
work. Like many other things, many tend to put all their eggs in one
basket, then BOOM... it is knocked over. Admit it, the ease of it all lured
you in, now it is time for the kill.

Google got its usenet start by acquiring the Dejanews archive,
which was started around 1996 as best as I remember. With storage
space getting real cheap, most anybody can start archiving the
usenet post and start providing some competition. I often get
useful info from several years back, but an archive that is only
two or three years old would probably provide me with 95% of the
info I'm looking for. As far as subscription, I'd might pay $10 a
year to get access with out all the ad hassels.

 

[Michael Black]

"Mike" (no_spam@comcast.net) writes:

Did you see http://groups-beta.google.com/? I assume you're talking about
the current version.

Cheers,
Mike

That's the problem. They moved "beta" into service. That is the

"improvement". They want the interface to be more like "yahoo groups",
and they've succeeded at that. They've failed at keeping it useful.

Michael

"Bob Penoyer" <bob@NOSPAMbobpenoyer.com> wrote in message
news:snbir0l9odjv9gh5llc763pjfpfiam16k2@4ax.com...
Google Groups has changed radically. I used to be able to do a search,
find an indentured list of posts, navigate the posts, easily return to
the search options page, modify the original search terms and begin a
new search. I don't see how to do that now. It appears that Google
Groups (once Deja.com) has been ruined by the "new" version.

Have you encountered the new Google Groups? If so, how have you dealt
with it? Have you found a way to use it similarly to the way it was
used before? If so, how?

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 19:37:18 +0000, Roger Johansson wrote:

"Tim Williams" <tmoranwms@charter.net> wrote:

I don't get why people bitch about things that work. It must be they
refuse to accept change and the hardship of getting there, but I'd
think people doing something high level like electronics would be
mature enough to accept it.


I would like to find all messages written by a certain person, during a
certain time period, and download those messages as one long text file,
with all the messages in chronological order. Can you use groups.google
like that now?

You could install Linux, and get the whole freaking newsgroup in one D/L
with something like slrnpull, and do whatever you want to with the
downloaded text. Of course, you'd need a newsserver - this wouldn't work
with Google.

I haven't yet heard from anyone who approves of the new google groups
beta. It just plain sucks. But I also have no idea how to let the Google
folks know that their new baby should be aborted.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 09:04:18 +0000, Roger Johansson wrote:

Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

You could install Linux, and get the whole freaking newsgroup in one
D/L with something like slrnpull, and do whatever you want to with the
downloaded text. Of course, you'd need a newsserver - this wouldn't
work with Google.

There are no newsservers which keep 10 years of messages.

What we need is a good way to retrieve the messages we want.
Google wants to make that process as difficult as possible, and gives the
search results in small pieces, so they can put as many ads as possible
in front of my eyes while I am searching and retrieving.

Such a system is made to keep the user occupied for as long as possible,
it is not made to simplify the task for the user.
It cannot be used for automated batch jobs.

This makes it impossible to use the usenet archives for any kind of
serious research. Most advantages of using computers are lost and we
get a system which is like searching in an enormous pile of old
newspapers and looking at the articles manually.

I guess all we can do is boycott all their advertisers.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Active8]

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 21:12:15 -0800, Bob Penoyer wrote:

Google Groups has changed radically. I used to be able to do a search,
find an indentured list of posts, navigate the posts, easily return to
the search options page, modify the original search terms and begin a
new search. I don't see how to do that now. It appears that Google
Groups (once Deja.com) has been ruined by the "new" version.

Have you encountered the new Google Groups? If so, how have you dealt
with it? Have you found a way to use it similarly to the way it was
used before? If so, how?

What's everyone on about? I've been using it for the past coupla
days and I only get ads off to the right side - that's not as bad as
it was before, either.

I think it's setting a cookie now so I don't have to click on the
"tree view" link any more - or maybe they decided to default to that
view.

Works for me but I'd like to know how (as another poster claimed) to
download a pile of messages. IME, I've never been able to get more
than 10 messages in the thread.

I also like the way the quoted text can be expanded and collapsed -
and it even works with a saved page.

I don't have to select the "search in xxx.xxx.xxx only" radio
button, either.

They do need to keep the search feature on every page, though.

What's all the whining about?
--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[Si Ballenger]

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 08:49:35 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net>
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 19:37:18 +0000, Roger Johansson wrote:

"Tim Williams" <tmoranwms@charter.net> wrote:

I don't get why people bitch about things that work. It must be they
refuse to accept change and the hardship of getting there, but I'd
think people doing something high level like electronics would be
mature enough to accept it.


I would like to find all messages written by a certain person, during a
certain time period, and download those messages as one long text file,
with all the messages in chronological order. Can you use groups.google
like that now?

You could install Linux, and get the whole freaking newsgroup in one D/L
with something like slrnpull, and do whatever you want to with the
downloaded text. Of course, you'd need a newsserver - this wouldn't work
with Google.

I haven't yet heard from anyone who approves of the new google groups
beta. It just plain sucks. But I also have no idea how to let the Google
folks know that their new baby should be aborted.

Google is trying to use usenet as their "community" (see quote
below). Microsoft (and others) have already done this with the
microsoft news groups using a web interface, and even the MPVs do
not know that they are actually using usenet instead of a MS help
forum (middle links). Bottom link is one place that you might be
able to send them feedback.

"Google Groups is a free online community and discussion group
service that offers the Web's most comprehensive archive of
Usenet postings (more than a billion messages)."

http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/default.mspx
http://hardware.mcse.ms/message109740.html
http://www.howtofixcomputers.com/bb/ftopic47865.html

http://groups-beta.google.com/support/bin/request.py

 

[Active8]

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 16:18:22 GMT, Si Ballenger wrote:

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 16:48:58 +1000, Al Borowski
al.borowski@EraseThis.gmail.com> wrote:


Have you found a way to use it similarly to the way it was
used before?

Not yet. I've been kind of trying to find a work-around.


Like this? http://www.google.com.au/grphp?hl=en&tab=wg&q=

Excellant tip! I like the advanced setup below.

http://www.google.com.au/advanced_group_search?hl=en

What? The Aussie Google hasn't redirected yet?

As for advanced search, I think it would be nice to be able to
specify how close to each other certain specified search terms must
appear in the text.

So if I want bjt RF amplifier, I might get:

"here's an RF amplifier for 40m band. It's designed around a xxxx
bjt."

not:

"Here's a bjt audio amplifier... blah blah...

you can't use it for RF."

Not the best example. My first office suite was Corell Perfect
Office. Word Perfect had an indexing app that let you control that
kind of return relevance by specifying that it keep track of groups
of words resolved to the sentence, paragraph, or document level.
--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[Don Bruder]

In article <C4Gud.12191$Ae.6165@newsread1.dllstx09.us.to.verio.net>,
"Moneyman" <goferbroke@millionaire.com> wrote:

All good things come to an end sooner or later. Being they're on the market
now, the ads will have to pay off for the investors, while the informational
use will become less and less, since that involves "work" or "desired"
product which up til now, most likely hasn't paid them a dime. Ten to one,
soon they offer searches on a "subscription" service. Any one care to bet?

There will be life "after" Google. There was before too, with a little leg
work. Like many other things, many tend to put all their eggs in one
basket, then BOOM... it is knocked over. Admit it, the ease of it all lured
you in, now it is time for the kill.

MM

The "kill" in my case being me not bothering to use Google anymore.
<shrug> That just means they won't get the ad revenue from my visits
ticking up the counters, as well as me not giving them any subscription
money. Simple enough, huh? Lycos, Excite, and more that I can't name
right now, even Yahoo, not to mention the dozens (probably more like
hundreds or thousands) of "niche" searchers, spiders, crawlers,
indexers, etc will be able to take the place of google. As has been
said, life after google will go on. It's just going to involve doing a
little more leg-work for yourself.

I'd like to propose a new corrolary to the networking laws...
As we all (should) know, there is great truth in the saying "The 'net
interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it". In the case of
something such as google going subscription, a slight change in the
wording is needed: "The 'net interprets profiteering as damage, and
routes around it."

In my eyes, it's OK to go the "OK, here's what you searched for - wanna
buy a subscription for even fancier/better/faster ways to do it?" route,
but something like google, which has always been a freebie, going purely
"You aren't subscribed. I ain't tellin' you jack!" is just plain wrong.
Never mind that it's entirely against the spirit of the internet, which
is supposed to be a free-flowing exchange of information.

--
Don Bruder - dakidd@sonic.net - New Email policy in effect as of Feb. 21, 2004.
Short form: I'm trashing EVERY E-mail that doesn't contain a password in the
subject unless it comes from a "whitelisted" (pre-approved by me) address.
See <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd/main/contact.html> for full details.

 

[Roger Johansson]

shb*NO*SPAM*@comporium.net (Si Ballenger) wrote:

I would like to find all messages written by a certain person, during
a certain time period, and download those messages as one long text
file, with all the messages in chronological order. Can you use
groups.google like that now?

Sounds like somebody is in the "stalker" mode. ;-)

I am interested in retrieving my own messages. Google says I have written
6350 messages since 1996. I would like to be able to retrieve all my
messages in chronological order. Or all messages containing a certain
word, for example.

The usenet archives are really valuable for research only if the messages
are available through a good search and retrieve system.

If google used a really good system they couldn't force people to look at
every generated web page manually. So this is just another example of how
the money system destroys possibilities for mankind. All the ads we see
on the web, obscuring the real message on most web pages, pyramid schemes
spamming usenet, the destruction of values to keep the prices up. Did you
know that we burn wheat in power plants instead of coal, in spite of the
need for food in a few parts of the world?
The price of wheat has to be kept high enough for good profit.

That is why I am working for the abolition of money, capitalism, and the
creationist traditions which is the basis for capitalism.
To force people to live on will power without inner peace, the holy ghost
and such ideas, there is a need for mobbing and one persons power over
another person. So creationism uses the money system to push people
around, shaping them into the kind of minds which is the goal of the
creationist system. But it is a very lossy process. Not all men can be
"created", shaped, into holy ghosts. A lot of men become criminals,
alcoholists, serial killers, etc..

That is the reason behind all the coffee people drink, all the alkohol
and other drugs, all the violence in movies and tv, all mobbing in
schools and in the society, violence in homes, accidents caused by this
situation, in short, 99 % of all problems mankind is suffering from.

We have already achieved a lot, we have abolished church which was the
ideological defence for all this violence, but we have not abolished
creationism in real social life yet. There are very strong traditions
based on gender roles and mobbing, the eternal love and the holy
matrimony are still strong factors in social life.

Mothers still make their daughters strong willed and very convincing as
sex machines. Boys are still forced to become men, with all the negative
consequences for mankind. The intellectual world is still full of
misunderstandings, secrets, and detrimental ideas people shape their own
and other's, lives after.




--
Roger J.

 

[Active8]

On 11 Dec 2004 18:38:35 GMT, Roger Johansson wrote:

shb*NO*SPAM*@comporium.net (Si Ballenger) wrote:

I would like to find all messages written by a certain person, during
a certain time period, and download those messages as one long text
file, with all the messages in chronological order. Can you use
groups.google like that now?

Sounds like somebody is in the "stalker" mode. ;-)

I am interested in retrieving my own messages. Google says I have written
6350 messages since 1996. I would like to be able to retrieve all my
messages in chronological order. Or all messages containing a certain
word, for example.

So start with:

January 1996 Roger Johansson <add'l keywords>

or learn to write an app that sends the queries unattended and
concatenates the returns.

The usenet archives are really valuable for research only if the messages
are available through a good search and retrieve system.

I don't see how the *engine* has gotten any worse.

If google used a really good system they couldn't force people to look at
every generated web page manually.

The engine and the generated page are two totally separate issues.

You think they should waste bandwidth and send you 1e12 returns when
most searches are satisfied in the first few? I noticed the advanced
search page allows for up to 100 returns per page. Will that do it
for ya?

So this is just another example of how
the money system destroys possibilities for mankind. All the ads we see
on the web, [...]

<snip OT philosophising>

Google's ads are less obtrusive than a lot of pages I've seen; TV
Guide for one. Even with small placeholders where my proxy filter
hosed them, they move the content (i.e., the program listings grid)
off the bottom of the window. And their webmaster is a f*cking
moron.

<snip OT philosophising>
--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[Roger Johansson]

Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net> wrote:

Google's ads are less obtrusive than a lot of pages I've seen; TV
Guide for one. Even with small placeholders where my proxy filter
hosed them, they move the content (i.e., the program listings grid)
off the bottom of the window. And their webmaster is a f*cking
moron.

They haven't started making money off it yet, but they are preparing for
such a move. They cannot get the ad business going until they have
organized the archives in a way which forces people to see the ads.
Anyway, it is impossible to retrieve the messages in a form which is
really useful.

I looked at the google search result listings of messages today.

I usually quote a few lines of the message when I write a reply, and
those lines are from my opponent(s) in the discussion.

Earlier you could see that those lines are not written by me, because
there is one or more arrows at the beginning of every quoted line.

When google removes the arrows, and shows the first two lines of text for
every message in a listing it looks like I have the views of my
opponents.

Imagine a discussion between nazis and jews, for example, then all the
jews would look like nazis in the google groups listing, and all the
nazis would look like jews. (If they follow common usenet practice and
start with a quote from the opponent.)

This is clearly not a good idea, so google should stop erasing important
parts of the text, the arrows which show who said what in the listings on
groups google com.

Only top posting fools, clueless beginners, will be fairly represented by
google groups as it works now.


--
Roger J.

 

[Roger Johansson]

"Leroy Mowry" <@c.edu> wrote:

Yes, here http://tinyurl.com/48648

Use it while you can because you'll be stuck with:
no one-click "sort - by - date" locking feature
no consistencies on highlighted search texts
no "search - only - this - group" feature
no year on threads at a single glance
no "view - this - article - only"
no links on opponent's name
no thread expand lines
no quoted text color
no one-click "email"
no nothing
nada

I tried this and made a search on my own name:
http://www.google.com.au/groups?safe=images&as_uauthors=Roger%20Johansson&lr=&num=50&hl=en

The first result link looks like this:
.......

Re: Program to view MIDI playback on a virtual keyboard
Why not use van basco's kareaoke player? It doesn't show notation, but has a keyboard
that lights up That keyboard is so small, and has dark colors, it just doesn't work.
You can't see the harmonies if you cannot see the keyboard clearly. ...
comp.music.midi - 11 Dec 2004 by Roger Johansson - View Thread (12 articles)
.......

The first two lines which are quoted are not from me, but google has removed the arrows,
which show up when you click on the link:
...........

Why not use van basco's kareaoke player?
It doesn't show notation, but has a keyboard that lights up

That keyboard is so small, and has dark colors, it just doesn't work.
You can't see the harmonies if you cannot see the keyboard clearly.
..........

This removal of arrows in the result list is going to get millions of authors very angry
when they realize that google says that they have said things their opponents have
actually said.

In this case it doesn't matter much, but imagine a heated discussion about a very
controversial issue. Would you like google to show you as the nazi pedophile or
anti-abortion activist you are fighting against?

Maybe we should start every message with an explanation about google groups way to
forge people's articles in the most horrible way to misrepresent the authors views.

If they are going to quote a few lines of the message in the listing we could at least
demand that they take the quote from the authors first own lines, not his opponent's
lines, which have arrows in front of them in the original message.


--
Roger J.

 

[Leroy Mowry]

"Roger Johansson" <no-email@home.se> wrote

I tried this and made a search on my own name: http://snipurl.com/bbdj
This removal of arrows [on the author search] result lists is going to get millions of
authors very angry when they realize that google says that they have said things their
opponents have actually said.

I didn't notice that change, now I do. Why don't we copyright all the
stuff we posted to Usenet. And anybody who tries to links people to
this information is the traffiicking copyrighted info. If anything we
write is automatically coyrighted then Google should better stop
making authors angry, or else...

Google should at least color code them instead of using ">," ">>,"
">>>>>>," or nothing at all on the author's search results. They
believe the "arrows" are wasting space. But they really don't.

Here's another one.
www.google.co.uk

 

[Roger Johansson]

"Leroy Mowry" <@c.edu> wrote:

Google should at least color code them instead of using ">," ">>,"
">>>>>>," or nothing at all on the author's search results. They
believe the "arrows" are wasting space. But they really don't.

I think the reason is that they want to remove everything which can
disturb or confuse a lot of people who do not understand these arrows.
They want to streamline the web pages for many more possible users,
hundreds of millions of people who have no idea about how written
discussions work in usenet and mail, so they can get a lot of clicks.

Clicks show the degree of exposure a web site gets, and the income from
that web site is determined by how much exposure the commercial
corporativists think they are getting by placing their ads on that web
site. Exposure is measured in clicks.

That is why so many web sites are very confusing and you have jump around
among many pages before you find what you are after. It is the same
principle as in supermarkets, the milk is often placed in the most remote
section of the store, so the customers are exposed to other stuff they
can be fooled into buying for as long as possible while walking through
the whole store twice to get the milk.

This causes a lot of extra work and unnecessary buying, and reduces the
possible bandwidth of internet with 95 %.


--
Roger J.

 

[kevreh]

Just found a major bug in the new Google Groups everyone might want to be
aware of. Even though the faq at google says your email (see below) is
protected when posting, if someone replies to your post your email is shown
in the header. Ooops.....
BTW, the email thats shown is the one you have to use to register so there
no such thing as using a masked email.

Is my email address visible on the web when I post to a group?


When your message is posted to a group, Google Groups masks your email
address on the web to prevent automated computer programs from harvesting it
for spamming purposes. If, however, you send out your post via email or to
Usenet, your email address will be visible to anyone who receives it.

 

[Michael Black]

"kevreh" (kevin2@REMOVEMErehbeins.com) writes:

Just found a major bug in the new Google Groups everyone might want to be
aware of. Even though the faq at google says your email (see below) is
protected when posting, if someone replies to your post your email is shown
in the header. Ooops.....
BTW, the email thats shown is the one you have to use to register so there
no such thing as using a masked email.

Is my email address visible on the web when I post to a group?

The bug is that they mangle the email addresses when displaying messages

over there, not that they don't mangle email addresses when the messages
leave their system.

But it turns out they've set things up so people can reply to old messages,
which is ultimately a far more serious "bug". Connect that with their
creation of the illusion that "google groups" is something web-based
that has nothing to do with Usenet, and this is more dangerous. While
I can't quite see why people are suddenly seeking out old threads
to reply to, now these idiots can suddenly post replies to old messages,
complete without any quoting, so nobody has any idea of what they
are talking about.

Micahel

When your message is posted to a group, Google Groups masks your email
address on the web to prevent automated computer programs from harvesting it
for spamming purposes. If, however, you send out your post via email or to
Usenet, your email address will be visible to anyone who receives it.