Do You Hate The New Google Groups Format?

[curtjester1]

There is hope if you want to use the wonderufl Old Google Group Format
by linking onto this:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=https://groups.google.com/grphp%3Fhl%3Den&usg=AFQjCNEjkVkieeYvNGwbeUHdGEdW01LJAA

CJ

[mainframetech]

Sadly there will come a time that they will remove that too.

Chris

[claviger]

Thanks CJ,

I prefer the old format too.

[mainframetech]

Ditto. Move to top.

Chris

[claviger]

The new Google format is having "issues" this morning. Also seems be
missing basic parts from the old format.

[Sandy McCroskey]

claviger wrote:
> The new Google format is having "issues" this morning. Also seems be
> missing basic parts from the old format.
>
>

It's a mystery to me why anyone still bothers with Google groups.
Newsreader software is your friend, or wants to be.

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

Because certain people here will not admit what they said in the past.

[Bud]

On Monday, July 1, 2013 7:13:02 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> The new Google format is having "issues" this morning. Also seems be
> missing basic parts from the old format.

It`s been missing basic parts from the beginning. I can`t search by
author, or search my own past messages, all searching is more difficult.
You can only view a small portion of the post you are responding to,
leading to a lot of unnecessary scrolling. It`s now just a bad, evil
product and the people who concocted it should come back to life as the
comma key on Harris`s keyboard. I`ve written quite a few nasty messages to
google, saying their crappy new Groups suck and threatening to use Bing to
search with. They seem unmoved so far.

[Bud]

I found google groups to be real user-friendly when I got into newgroups
about 10 years ago. But every year or so they would make a change which
made it a little worse until now it is finally a user hating product.

What do you suggest as an alternative, Sandy?

>
> /sm

[David Von Pein]

I'm getting accustomed to the new Google Groups format. The links that
previously revived the old format no longer work, which is too bad. But
I'm actually beginning to like this new NG format. (Never thought I'd say
that.)

It's all in what you get used to, I suppose.

[claviger]

Thanks Sandy. The old format was just fine. Old saying,"If it ain't
broke, don't fix it." I wish Google would follow that good advice. The
new format is acting strange and getting worse. It's like watching HAL
9000 having a meltdown.

[Sandy McCroskey]

I use Thunderbird. It's free.

However, to search for old posts, I would still go back to Google (though
other sites also archive posts from here). Sounds like the search function
for the group on Google is now pretty useless. I figured that would happen
if they kept working on it.

/sm

[claviger]

> > What do you suggest as an alternative, Sandy?
>
> >
>
>
>
> I use Thunderbird. It's free.
>
>
>
> However, to search for old posts, I would still go back to Google (though
>
> other sites also archive posts from here). Sounds like the search function
>
> for the group on Google is now pretty useless. I figured that would happen
>
> if they kept working on it.
>
>
>
> /sm

I'm seeing gaping holes of separation in the text. This is an extravagant
waste of space. Also, the loading process seems a lot slower.

[Bud]

Startling admission.

[Anthony Marsh]

Thunderbird directly from McAdams server.

>>
>> /sm
>
>

[Alex Foyle]

On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 5:39:15 AM UTC+2, Sandy McCroskey wrote:

Like DVP I also used to hate the new format and now have gotten used to it
and actually like it better, accessing and posting via Google groups with
no problems whatsoever.

Also, Sandy, the search function at the Google groups end of AAJFK still
works as excellent as it used to. Just did a little nostalgia trip and
trial search for Isabel Kirk:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/isabel$20kirk

Within a second I got all these wonderfully zany posts from mostly 1999 re
the whole Lafontaine brouhaha which ultimately culminated in the famous
court case:

http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost/bochan.html

Some other selective searches just now proved again that the search
function at Google groups still works accurately and remains an invaluable
tool for buffs and researchers.

[Anthony Marsh]

You can't even quote what I have said or what I have written on my WEB
site.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Well, that's good news then.

[claviger]

The more I use the new format the more I hate it. What's with the
wasteful spacing between lines and paragraphs? I have to reconstruct
entire messages to make them look normal. Anyone else having that
problem? Never had to do that on the old format. What happened to number
of messages by month and year the old format had? I thought that was
pretty interesting.

[Alex Foyle]

On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 3:55:57 AM UTC+2, claviger wrote:

> The more I use the new format the more I hate it. What's with the
> wasteful spacing between lines and paragraphs? I have to reconstruct
> entire messages to make them look normal. Anyone else having that
> problem? Never had to do that on the old format.

I agree on that, the constant reformatting sucks and scrolling through the endless posts of people who are too lazy to do so also sucks.

> What happened to number of messages by month and year the old format had? I > thought that was pretty interesting.

There is a drop down menue to the right of the reply button and there you can select "Show activity" and on the following page you can also see your post history by month and year. However, they don't go back as far as they used to, which is indeed a shame. But if you know the keywords you can search and find any of your or anybody elses old posts.

[Jean Davison]

David, So far I hate the new Google. Is there no longer a Sort By Date
function? Or View As Tree? I'm hoping I'll get used to it, too, but I
miss those features, among other things.

On the bulletin board in front of me there's a cartoon showing an angry
woman standing next to a desktop, staring at a big jagged hole in a
window. One child says to the other: "WHAT DID MOM DO WITH HER
COMPUTER?" Answer: "SHE TRIED A NEW WINDOWS APPLICATION." Google isn't
Windows, but...
Jean

[David Von Pein]

JEAN DAVISON SAID:

David, So far I hate the new Google. Is there no longer a Sort By Date
function? Or View As Tree? I'm hoping I'll get used to it, too, but I
miss those features, among other things.

DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

I don't know about those features you mentioned. I never use them anyway,
so if they're gone, it won't bother me.

The two worst things about the new format for me:

1.) There's no "individual message" option any longer. The new design has
a permalink for each post, but it's always in "threaded" format. I like
the separate message option better. But at least all the old individual
posts will re-direct properly via the new format. So that's a good thing
for sure to avoid dead links.

2.) The delay involved when accessing anything on this new "cloud" format.
(Is that what it's called--the "cloud" or "floating" platform?) Anyway,
there's always a "loading" stage involved now, which is annoying at times.

But, overall, I don't hate this "new" version as much as I thought I
would.

But apparently they eliminated all "profiles" for all users. That's odd.
No "View Profile" links anymore. I wonder why that is?

[Bud]

On Thursday, July 4, 2013 10:55:32 AM UTC-4, Jean Davison wrote:
> On 7/1/2013 9:09 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> > I'm getting accustomed to the new Google Groups format. The links that
>
> > previously revived the old format no longer work, which is too bad. But
>
> > I'm actually beginning to like this new NG format. (Never thought I'd say
>
> > that.)
>
> >
>
> > It's all in what you get used to, I suppose.
>
> >
>
>
>
> David, So far I hate the new Google. Is there no longer a Sort By Date
>
> function? Or View As Tree?

Hi Jean!

There are chronological view and view as tree options. If you look on
this particular post it says (currently anyway) "22 posts by 9 authors"
with a little down pointed triangle in a small circle. Hit that and it
will show some options. Hope this helps, but it`s a long way from
rehabilitating this turkey.

[Jean Davison]

Thanks, David.
Jean

[Jean Davison]

On 7/4/2013 7:05 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, July 4, 2013 10:55:32 AM UTC-4, Jean Davison wrote:
>> On 7/1/2013 9:09 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>>> I'm getting accustomed to the new Google Groups format. The links that
>>
>>> previously revived the old format no longer work, which is too bad. But
>>
>>> I'm actually beginning to like this new NG format. (Never thought I'd say
>>
>>> that.)
>>
>>>
>>
>>> It's all in what you get used to, I suppose.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> David, So far I hate the new Google. Is there no longer a Sort By Date
>>
>> function? Or View As Tree?
>
> Hi Jean!
>
> There are chronological view and view as tree options. If you look on
> this particular post it says (currently anyway) "22 posts by 9 authors"
> with a little down pointed triangle in a small circle. Hit that and it
> will show some options. Hope this helps, but it`s a long way from
> rehabilitating this turkey.

Thanks, Bud! I see that triangle now, but I agree it's a turkey.

I'm also trying on the Thunderbird newsreader Sandy recommended.
So far, so good.
Jean

[claviger]

Jean,

Something else very annoying about the new format. If you accidently
double space in the middle of a sentence it defaults the rest of the
sentence to the next line. The old format simply left two spaces in the
middle of the sentence.

[David Von Pein]

After living with the "New Google Groups" format for several days now, I
am now officially retracting my earlier statement where I said I kinda
liked it.

But I'm now finding the excessive and never-ending scrolling a pain in the
rump. Somebody earlier mentioned the huge waste of space--and they're
right. Why are there these huge gaps between quoted text? Awfully
annoying.

There are a few things I like about the new design (e.g., weblinks will
now work properly, even without the HTTP at the front of them--and that's
nice), but overall, the new format isn't nearly as nice or user-friendly
as the "old" Groups. (IMHO.)

I wonder why some people think that "change" automatically means "better"?
In this case, I think it's safe to say it does not. (And somebody ought to
tell the designers at YouTube the same thing. They keep changing stuff
every half hour it seems. And the changes are rarely "better" than before.
I do like the latest YT channel design however.)

But I don't care if this newsgroup is now perched on a cloud. I want my
cloudless "old" version back. :-)

[End bitch session.]

[Anthony Marsh]

Well said.

What did you find offensive about the WayBack Machine?
Did you check out the old movies? Some are never shown on TV any more.
Even the SyFy channel has gone to reality shows and wrestling instead of
public domain Science Fiction movies.
My new TiVo is hungry.

[David Von Pein]

ANTHONY MARSH ASKED:

What did you find offensive about the WayBack Machine?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't know what you mean, Tony. I don't find anything "offensive" about
it all.

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

Did you check out the old movies?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Some of them. But that stuff isn't really connected to the "Wayback
Machine" at archive.org, is it?

Anyway, I like the archive.org site for several things, including this
very good old 1960 Christopher Lee thriller:

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2012/10/city-of-dead-aka-horror-hotel.html


And this JFK-related Govt. film:

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/10/years-of-lightning-day-of-drums.html


And the old-time radio stuff is almost endless (which is a nice resource
for people who like "OTR", as I do):

http://archive.org/browse.php?field=subject&mediatype=audio&collection=oldtimeradio

I've used a lot of that OTR stuff on my third (and newest) YouTube channel
too:

http://www.youtube.com/DVPOldTimeRadio

[curtj...@hotmail.com]

Now if DVP would take this 'revelatory epiphany' and incorporate it from
his vortex of untruthful JFK and LHO axioms, we may have hope for all
LNT'erdom!!

CJ

[curtj...@hotmail.com]

Things I hate most are you can't reply to author, can't send to multiple
groups, can't look under a profile to see the history of posts of another
poster, or yourself from weekly to a stored calendar of years. The
storage of groups that one had posted to and their complete addresses.
They really pared off a lot of features and options and I do believe they
also did away with the 'collapse down' feature; thus just making it much
more lacking and difficult, much less sore on the eyes. I also used to
like when they had links on the bottom right to groups that closely
resembled the group you were posting to. Any conspiratorial thoughts on
this???

CJ

[deborah....@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 9, 2013 7:40:10 PM UTC-7, curtjester1 wrote:
> There is hope if you want to use the wonderufl Old Google Group Format
>
> by linking onto this:
>
>
>
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=https://groups.google.com/grphp%3Fhl%3Den&usg=AFQjCNEjkVkieeYvNGwbeUHdGEdW01LJAA
>
>
>
> CJ

What good does this do?

[miker...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 9, 2013 9:40:10 PM UTC-5, curtjester1 wrote:
> There is hope if you want to use the wonderufl Old Google Group Format
>
> by linking onto this:
>
>
>
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=https://groups.google.com/grphp%3Fhl%3Den&usg=AFQjCNEjkVkieeYvNGwbeUHdGEdW01LJAA
>
>
>
> CJ

This google format sucks.

I think it is time for this forum to enter the modern world.

Please change to a forum format which allows the posting of graphics.

You should archive the old format and not add any thing else to it. Just
let it be searchable.

Then start a new forum which allows graphics.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/9/2013 12:13 AM, miker...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 9, 2013 9:40:10 PM UTC-5, curtjester1 wrote:
>> There is hope if you want to use the wonderufl Old Google Group Format
>>
>> by linking onto this:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=https://groups.google.com/grphp%3Fhl%3Den&usg=AFQjCNEjkVkieeYvNGwbeUHdGEdW01LJAA
>>
>>
>>
>> CJ
>
>
>
> This google format sucks.
>
> I think it is time for this forum to enter the modern world.
>

This forum is not a Google Group. It is a Usenet newsgroup.

> Please change to a forum format which allows the posting of graphics.
>

Impossible. Usenet does not allow you to post graphics. You have to beg
McAdams to do it in each case.

> You should archive the old format and not add any thing else to it. Just
> let it be searchable.
>
> Then start a new forum which allows graphics.
>
>

Usenet is supported to be anti-censorship. A private forum would be
censored. You would not be allowed to post.

[miker...@gmail.com]

Yes I know.

But a forum that will allow posting graphics does not have to be private.

[curtj...@hotmail.com]

Nothing today, but it used to for awhile. It let you go back to Old Google
Groups. After that while, it was not a good link anymore.

CJ