J
John Doe
Could be a glitch, but I can't find their search page, or "I'm not
finding their search page" if you prefer.
Thanks.
finding their search page" if you prefer.
Thanks.
N
Nil
It's probably better described as a scandal.
P
Paul
Nil said:
They sure made a "dogs breakfast" out of the old Dejanews, didn't they.
What a waste.
Paul
F
Flasherly
I'd rather as soon not, in the latter instance being I haven't been
there for at least a year, so not having found the page, as I remember
it, is immaterial to much, in as little as there is left of what
Google has presently to offer, I mean, that which could conceivably
motivate a rat's ass like me. The short of it being, a couple of
years ago, Google incessant security challenges to my refusal to
update to their software standards evinced a standard response: See ya
but wouldn't want to be ya.
J
Jon Danniken
I used it last week at this address:
http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en&q=&hl=en& ,
but now it's redirecting to here:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&hl=en#!overview
It's bad enough that they disemboweled the old search, but now it's
completely gone. What an utterly horrible move on their part.
Jon
J
John Doe
Jon Danniken said:
The whole mess could be a loose conspiracy to destroy access to the
public USENET archive.
But since we have to cope with the powers that be... With terabyte
drives cheap nowadays, I wonder if personal archives are feasible
with appropriate software, database software I guess.
I would agree that politics groups are mostly garbage, but I don't
want to be limited to moderated commercial groups for information
about everything else.
I'm aware of binary search engines, but is there some USENET archive
search for text posts like Eternal September?
J
John Doe
I wonder whether there isn't one place in the world where people are
willing to pay something (however little) for access to public
discussion. I'm sure a nonprofit organization could handle the
overhead of a USENET archive. And
willing to pay something (however little) for access to public
discussion. I'm sure a nonprofit organization could handle the
overhead of a USENET archive. And
M
Michael Black
Actually, they didn't. All they bought from dejanews was its archive,
they never used the interface software from dejanews. So they just
fumbled it from the beginning, rather than turning it into something bad.
A real factor is that once they introduced their own google groups, that
drove things. So what works as a web only thing (their google groups)
mostly doesn't work for Usenet, but they use the same interface and don't
seem to care one bit.
Virtually all of the problem with google is that it can't or won't see a
difference between their groups and Usenet.
Michael
J
John Doe
Nobody made that distinction, nobody really cares, and you
probably don't have a credible citation to support the claim.
So maybe they bought it and didn't use it.
Yes, they fumbled it from the beginning, like immediately removing
the most relevant groups results (or not including it, whatever).
To a normal English speaker, there is no difference.
--
Y
Yousuf Khan
Yup, my feelings exactly. Deja was so simple and easy to use, Google
Groups -- no where near that.
Yousuf Khan
M
Michael Black
But people forget. Dejanews failed because they didn't get the "revenue
stream" they needed, and indeed dejanews had changed over its life.
Initially it was just an archive (and posting interface) for Usenet, but
as time went by, they tried to become something else. I can't remember if
they added their own forums, or tried to add some rating system, there was
something to make it more "consumer friendly" (ie about consuming) but I
can't remember exactly what.
Michael
J
jamesjaddah1755
I was just reading one or two responses after yours and they disappeared after I signed in to Google Groups.
I miss Deja also. It seems like every change Google makes is geared toward making everything more difficult for the end user.
I no longer use Google to search like I did when they use to highlight your search terms in the returned documents. Since they no longer do this it has made finding what I need much, much harder.
Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.
J
jamesjaddah1755
And another thing. (Also attached directly yo your post because GOogle is not showing responses afterwards).
I hadn't given it much thought much Google somehow attached someone else' -mail to my log in. I have no idea who (e-mail address removed) is.
Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.
J
John Doe
What is Google going to do with the USENET archive? It's a waste if
we can't search it.
we can't search it.
P
Paul
John said:
Maybe they'll sell it to Yahoo ?
Paul
J
jamesjaddah1755
I just type Google Groups in the Google search field. It's not perfect, but that's the only way.
Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.
J
John Doe
jamesjaddah1755 said:
Not perfect is a gross understatement. See if you can find Linus
Torvalds talking about his Linux kernel project...
M
Michael Black
You mean the classic thread where he announces it? Which has now been
vandalized by all kinds of google-idiots who think it's "cool" to reply to
an old message, especially such a famouns message.
Google does damage coming and going.
First, they havent' fixed the bug that allows replies to posts older than
30 days (their rule, when they changed the interface some years back they
put the bug in, yet later fixed it, but the last interface change the bug
was back and they still haven't fixed it; this is another example of them
treating the thing like their own groups, maybe it makes sense for a web
forum (though I've seen the contrary) to allow posts to old messages, but
it's only nonsense for Usenet).
And then, when they added the separate archives going back to the
beginning, they put up a timeline of "important Usenet messages", which
included that post from Linus. So they make it a target, likely many
people without a clue of where they are posting.
Michael
J
John Doe
If I were King...
I would smite Google and take the USENET archive.
I would make a web interface for USENET but (if possible) with the
same formatting as a USENET client/newsreader since that's what
makes USENET special. If that's not possible, a web interface
wouldn't work. The standard USENET tree style formatting combined
with the ability to ignore a thread branch is everything for
intelligent discussion.
There would be no moderated groups, it would include standard
unmoderated USENET groups.
Sign-up would require a credit card, only one user per billing
address. Not sure about the fee. Nonprofit is probably appropriate.
Not sure about offering binary groups. The fee might correspond to
number of bytes downloaded/uploaded. I suppose that cooperation
with the law is unavoidable, but binary USENET providers seem to do
well at that. Others know much better about the stuff.
My primary concern... Freedom of speech and freedom from speech.
Anonymity is okay when it comes to keeping others from knowing who
you are in real life (unless you are doing something illegal). But
nym-shifting to avoid filtering would be prohibited. That's why
requiring a credit card and only one user per billing address.
Even with personal filtering, I would like to prevent spamming
groups, either massive personal postings or by advertising. But I
guess that's really not necessary if you have buttons like "ignore
this poster and follow-ups" or just "ignore from here down". The
question is whether massive postings to a text group would slow
that group for everybody else even if they've ignored the spammer.
I would smite Google and take the USENET archive.
I would make a web interface for USENET but (if possible) with the
same formatting as a USENET client/newsreader since that's what
makes USENET special. If that's not possible, a web interface
wouldn't work. The standard USENET tree style formatting combined
with the ability to ignore a thread branch is everything for
intelligent discussion.
There would be no moderated groups, it would include standard
unmoderated USENET groups.
Sign-up would require a credit card, only one user per billing
address. Not sure about the fee. Nonprofit is probably appropriate.
Not sure about offering binary groups. The fee might correspond to
number of bytes downloaded/uploaded. I suppose that cooperation
with the law is unavoidable, but binary USENET providers seem to do
well at that. Others know much better about the stuff.
My primary concern... Freedom of speech and freedom from speech.
Anonymity is okay when it comes to keeping others from knowing who
you are in real life (unless you are doing something illegal). But
nym-shifting to avoid filtering would be prohibited. That's why
requiring a credit card and only one user per billing address.
Even with personal filtering, I would like to prevent spamming
groups, either massive personal postings or by advertising. But I
guess that's really not necessary if you have buttons like "ignore
this poster and follow-ups" or just "ignore from here down". The
question is whether massive postings to a text group would slow
that group for everybody else even if they've ignored the spammer.
Y
Yousuf Khan
Yeah, they did go from a simple interface to a more modern web-based
interface. The beauty of their web interface was that it was a very
well-designed, simple interface, with lots of useful Usenet-geared
search facilities, which Google totally ruined when it bought them.
Yousuf Khan