How do members access the group?
Ken
when I log on:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.hearing-loss/topics?lnk=srg
Not only are recent posts shown but there is a search facility and you
can make new posts, like this one.
But is it obvious that some members access the usenet by other means.
Someone recently mentioned that he could not readily search the group
and I notice that Iklein uses a different host.
I found the group what seems like decades ago through Deja. Later
Google absorbed Deja and took over its archives, including all posts
to this group since it was formed (by one Steve).
But I hold no particular brief for Google (though I don't know what I
would do without it!). I, and no doubt others, would be interested in
learning of different ways of accessing the usenet and their
advantages and disadvantages.
lklein
www.talkaboutsupport.com/group/alt.suppport.hearing-loss/messages/47594.html
I think this is part of yahoo support groups-since I know they have
various sites for support for health and emotional concerns-such as Talk
About Diabetes or Talk About Grief.
Lil
--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/group/alt.support.hearing-loss/
More information at http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/faq.html
Ken
> I don't remember how I found this group. The site I use is www.talkaboutsupport.com/group/alt.suppport.hearing-loss/messages/475...
>
> I think this is part of yahoo support groups-since I know they have
> various sites for support for health and emotional concerns-such as Talk
> About Diabetes or Talk About Grief.
>
> Lil
>
> --
> Message posted usinghttp://www.talkaboutsupport.com/group/alt.support.hearing-loss/
> More information athttp://www.talkaboutsupport.com/faq.html
It is not clear from the links provided whether News individual or
talkabout hold archives going way back. (there is no usenet archive as
such; only the archives maintained by hosts, such as Google).Also do
they offer a search facility? One obvious disadvantage of News
individual is that there seems to be an annual charge of 10 euros.
Google costs nothing.
Ken
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:33:18 -0700 (PDT), Ken
> is a painful process. I use Google when I need to use it, and
> news.individual.net because it gives me access to groups that many
> ISPs no longer carry. However, Google is no use for finding archives
> if people use the x-no archive switch, for instance, eg as I have
> always done, so I doubt you'll find my historical pearls, all gods be
> praised. :-)
>
> Mique
It is sad to learn that anyone searching the group of CI information
will not have the benefit of your experience. Maybe you should submit
a long post setting out your experience to date and omit to hit the
button you mention. That way it will remain in the archive.
I have made crap postings to this and other groups - no big deal - I
simply post a qualification or correction. But if I have any doubt
about the content at the time of posting then I don't post.
And I am puzzled as to how you find using Google groups 'painful'
apart from the absence of a 'use by' button. The only other host I
have used for groups is outlook express - now that IS painful!
Mason C
I've looked at Google groups a couple times and couldn't find anything.
From my perspective it is useless.
For many years I've used Agent (free than paid, now old version 2.0) and can't
imagine any other way to use Usenet.
http://www.forteinc.com/agent/
My excellent internet service (XO) does not support Usenet so I use the
one associated with Agent. The price is low and the service excellent.
http://www.forteinc.com/apn/index.php
I recommend both for serious use of news groups.
Mason C
Ken
> According to Mike Burke <mbu...@pcug.org.au> (and I quote):
>
> >True. As I said, it won't suit everyone, but using Google for Usenet
> >is a painful process. I use Google when I need to use it, and
> >news.individual.net because it gives me access to groups that many
> >ISPs no longer carry. However, Google is no use for finding archives
> >if people use the x-no archive switch, for instance, eg as I have
> >always done, so I doubt you'll find my historical pearls, all gods be
> >praised. :-)
>
> posts sent via Google.
>
> --
> John
I started this thread with two objectives - to alert everyone to the
joys of Google Groups and, secondly, to find out if there is anything
better. It is apparent that most of us are creatures of habit and stay
with the browser/usenet host which we first blundered into and have
become used to.
An important factor here, for me anyway, is that I have only the
haziest understanding of how it all works and most of us have
experienced that sinking feeling when, suddenly, it doesn't (work!).
Its a jungle out there!
For example I use a thing called Greasemonkey which enables me to
block posts by any individual (to qualify you have to do much more
than disagree with me - you have to be a bit weird). Anyway, I am not
at all clear how Greasemonkey relates to my browser or to Google
Groups. I think it is a Firefox add-on but there is a mention of a
'killfile' on the Google Groups page which relates somehow. Whether
the channel you use to the usenet enables you readily to block people
who are obviously disturbed is an important consideration (and it is
compassion for the disturbed as much as my own peace of mind which
concerns me - they only persist if people respond).
Mason C
I do not comprehend "the joys of Google Groups."
Possibly it is the personally-created groups?
With Agent and a Usenet server, I can instantly see all the groups or
my selected (so-called "subscribed") list.
I can search the groups for topics of interest (I put the important ones in
my subscribed list). I can see all or a select number of any group.
I can download the messages of interest; not waste time and screen space
on others.
There are at last count 67,679 groups in my All Groups list.
A friend has a Google Group. I get there via a link on his web page but
would be unlikely to find it by a search in Google (I tried -- it was buried in
a long list.)
Google has a big archive of Usenet posts. Is that it's only advantage?
MasonC
Mason C
I do not comprehend "the joys of Google Groups."
Possibly it is the personally-created groups?
With Agent and a Usenet server, I can instantly see all the groups or
my selected (so-called "subscribed") list.
I can search the groups for topics of interest (I put the important ones in
my subscribed list). I can see all or a select number of any group.
I can download the messages of interest; not waste time and screen space
on others.
There are at last count 67,679 groups in my All Groups list.
A friend has a Google Group. I get there via a link on his web page but
would be unlikely to find it by a search in Google (I tried -- it was buried in
a long list.)
I've done a little research and concluded that Google Groups is good
for its personal groups and for its large Usenet archive (but is it valuable?).
For Usenet the specialized news readers such as Agent are far superior.
MasonC
Ken
For technical stuff on the usenet and newsgroups go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USENET. It will rapidly become apparent
that we are wading into internet history.
The following is an extract:
Usenet was the initial Internet community and the place for many of
the most important public developments in the commercial Internet. It
was the place where Tim Berners-Lee announced the launch of the World
Wide Web[9], where Linus Torvalds announced the Linux project[10], and
where Marc Andreesen announced the creation of the Mosaic browser and
the introduction of the image tag,[11] which revolutionized the World
Wide Web by turning it into a graphical medium.
Web-based archiving of Usenet posts began in 1995 at Deja News with a
very large, searchable database. In 2001, this database was acquired
by Google.
Mason C
Apart from history. I'm suspecting that many Google Group users are
not really aware of what Usenet is.
>
>The following is an extract:
>
>Usenet was the initial Internet community and the place for many of
>the most important public developments in the commercial Internet. It
>was the place where Tim Berners-Lee announced the launch of the World
>Wide Web[9], where Linus Torvalds announced the Linux project[10], and
>where Marc Andreesen announced the creation of the Mosaic browser and
>the introduction of the image tag,[11] which revolutionized the World
>Wide Web by turning it into a graphical medium.
>
>Web-based archiving of Usenet posts began in 1995 at Deja News with a
>very large, searchable database. In 2001, this database was acquired
>by Google.
The acquisition of the database by Google seems to me of little significance.
By its nature, Usenet is a day-to-day system. The archive is of little value.
Any decent Usenet server has an adequate archive of recent posts.
Mason C
dsi1
> Web-based archiving of Usenet posts began in 1995 at Deja News with a
> very large, searchable database. In 2001, this database was acquired
> by Google.
My guess is that for most folks, Google Groups is the Usenet. The main
difference is that Usenet has no central server. No server can claim
ownership of the posts. Theoretically, Google Groups can make this
claim. However, for the time being, Google will kindly allow posts made
on their website to be released to the Usenet world. Rest assured that
that they have no obligation to continue to do so in the future.
I find no joy in the GG interface - it's slow and clumsy. OTOH, a
central archive is probably the only practical means of saving 20 or so
years of Usenet posts and creating and maintaining a database of the
posts. I suspect there will be some valuable data contained in the
archives that will be mined in the coming years.
Dr. Michael W. Ridenhour
I agree with Mason. Google Groups is worthless to me.
I use the Outlook Express News reader at work and the Thunderbird news
reader at home.
Everyone knows I have no trouble accessing news groups ;)
Michael
wgd.r...@verizon.net
alt groups. Forte's Agent now does the trick.
Wayne Dengel
Ken
> I was also using Outlook Express under Verizon until they stopped ALL
> alt groups. Forte's Agent now does the trick.
>
> Wayne Dengel
>
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 09:32:13 -0400, "Dr. Michael W. Ridenhour"
>
One interesting point: the only usenet archive - or at least the only
one going way back - appears to be Google. Presumably all the other
hosts, including OE, rely on that archive for other than current
posts. The point has been made that there is no guarantee that Google
will continue to maintain it. However the Google business model seems
to be based on the provision of free services on which they can hang
various paid services (such as advertising). And if, as will no doubt
happen at some stage, someone displaces them as Number One, no doubt
they will sell their archive resources - just as they purchased the
usenet archive from Deja News. Fingers crossed - the usenet archive is
a valuable, saleable resource which will survive.
dsi1
> One interesting point: the only usenet archive - or at least the only
> one going way back - appears to be Google. Presumably all the other
> hosts, including OE, rely on that archive for other than current
> posts. The point has been made that there is no guarantee that Google
> will continue to maintain it. However the Google business model seems
> to be based on the provision of free services on which they can hang
> various paid services (such as advertising). And if, as will no doubt
> happen at some stage, someone displaces them as Number One, no doubt
> they will sell their archive resources - just as they purchased the
> usenet archive from Deja News. Fingers crossed - the usenet archive is
> a valuable, saleable resource which will survive.
My point was that there's no guarantee that Google will continue to
relay messages posted on Google Groups to Usenet. My guess is that it's
in their best interest to have ownership of all posts put on Google
Groups. They will continue to maintain the archives because they found
value in Deja News and paid cash for it. As it goes, Google is a growing
monster of a company - one that could one day soon make Microsoft and
it's OSs and software irrelevant.
Ken
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 17:23:47 -0700 (PDT), Ken
> taken over from the former Deja News.
>
> But despite its immensity, it is incomplete (X-no archive made it so)
> and thus, IMHO, unreliable and of only curiousity value. It's a great
> play thing for those who like to prick arrogant posters' balloons by,
> say, searching for earlier posts that conflict with currently stated
> positions and so on, but more trouble than it's worth for serious
> research.
>
> What program are you using to access newsgroups, Ken?
>
> Mike
As I said, I use Google. I started in Deja. I have used OE but did
not like it (I forget why). I do not agree that usenet archives are
for dilettantes. I monitor several groups and find mining their
archives valuable - an indispensable data base. Over the years I
have repeatedly benefited from searching this group - phone problems,
particular HA technology, specific products, etc. etc. And similarly
with other groups. Stuff you could not get any other way - including
from professionals as well as laymen.
And don't worry about the Google monster - its time will come.
Everything has its use-by date. (Has anyone managed to download Chrome
to XP? I have tried about 6 times). And as this thread illustrates,
Google Groups is a long way from dominating the usenet. Hopefully
Google has learnt the wisdom of keeping its fingers out of the vast
information resources to which it provides access. If it ever tries
the sort of heavy-handed stuff we saw recently by EBay its empire
will collapse overnight.
Justine Sutton
go to search and enter alt etc.
Justine Sutton
dsi1
> And don't worry about the Google monster - its time will come.
> Everything has its use-by date. (Has anyone managed to download Chrome
> to XP? I have tried about 6 times). And as this thread illustrates,
> Google Groups is a long way from dominating the usenet. Hopefully
> Google has learnt the wisdom of keeping its fingers out of the vast
> information resources to which it provides access. If it ever tries
> the sort of heavy-handed stuff we saw recently by EBay its empire
> will collapse overnight.
The Google monster is still growing. Google Groups will continue to
grow, accelerated by the ISPs dropping Usenet service in 2008. Today
Google has made available it's Google phone which uses its Android open
architecture OS. It's just another phone but it's really the start of a
battle for dominance in the hand-held OS market and Google's attempt to
make MS and Apples hand-held OS "irrelevant." I suspect they have a good
chance of doing just that and of course, they intend to tie the OS with
Google branding very closely. Personally, I've not paid much attention
to hand-held OSs but a friend considers it as important if not more
important than the desktop/laptop OS market.
Ken
But what a resource! You can type any question or a few words into
Google and mine any of about ten sorts of data - straight web,
newsgroups, images, you tube etc. etc. and the way they store, for
free, the massive data base of usenet posts. In the coming world of
cloud computing, I believe (though I have not tried it) that they
offer a suite of software rivalling M/s Office. Well, that is nothing
new - Open Office did it years ago. Google are also reported to offer
the best email host - again I have not tried it - I am hooked on
Eudora. But one marked difference between the Google monster and the M/
s one is that Google has embraced open source and open access. M/s
have always sought to make problems for other software sellers and
have always been funny about source code. Also another fundamental
difference, M/s got off the ground by seizing, and marketing, its
initial package - M/s Basic the bulk of which was written by someone
else. M/s can claim credit for Quick Basic (which became Visual Basic)
but even there I wonder how much they took from Turbobasic? On that
foundation, plus the luck of IBM choosing MSDOS, M/s took off.
Google, as i understand it, launched itself on the strength of its own
innovative web search software and have continued to innovate and
offer ready access to other media and is an active participant in open
source (OK - it stands to make billions from it!). What I am
suggesting is that the Google business model is fundamentally more
benign than M/s. And if it changes away from that philosophy then it
will go the same way as M/s is about to go.
And another gripe about M/s - the only time they gave anything away
was IE. But their motivation was not benign. They effectively killed
off the real pioneer of web browsing software (now resurrected as
Firefox) . They followed the same path with Word Perfect. I avoid M/s
Office on principle!
We had better let this thread die - almost as bad as when we, somehow,
got loose on one Sarah. Though this is far less off-topic. The medium
is the message. Google - meta-medium! There i go again!
dsi1
I understand that the Google monster has changed the way we use the
internet and the reality is that an internet and even a world without
Google is hard to imagine. Google also excels in areas that the MS
monster has tried desperately in vain to get a foothold and monopolize
for years. Either MS is quaking in it's boots at this roll-out of
Android or it arrogantly fails to see a threat - just as it has done in
the past. My bet is that these days, it's the former rather than the later.
As to how benign an entity Google is, that remains to be seen. Monsters
typically ain't benign, are they? :-)
Ken
Stereotyping. Stan Freburg's Mr. Tweedy would point out that the main
thing about monsters is they are big (but it, as he would point out,
nicer to say 'diminutively challenged'). And if you don't know who the
H.. Stan/Tweedy is go to
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=nxEP5D58mK8
Now we are really off-topic.
dsi1
> Stereotyping. Stan Freburg's Mr. Tweedy would point out that the main
> thing about monsters is they are big (but it, as he would point out,
> nicer to say 'diminutively challenged'). And if you don't know who the
> H.. Stan/Tweedy is go to
> http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=nxEP5D58mK8
> Now we are really off-topic.
Stan Freburg is a hero of mine, Tweedy is not. :-)
Ken
Well you will enjoy the clip (the high quality option works best).