Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Improving Google Groups, and it's relationship with USENET..
26 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Tim Skirvin
Feb 13, 2012, 12:58:35 PM2/13/12
to
alex....@gmail.com writes:
> The points have been re-ordered.
>> 1. Improve and support a formal interaction point between Usenet
>> and Google Groups administrators.
> This has been placed at the head of the list because much of what follows
> is impossible without it.
*nod* I actually think that this is the most important problem
too, because the rest of these issues will be solved if this can be
solved. But I was not the originator of the list, so I didn't want to
abuse my copy-editor role too much.
> i) As part of this, 'intelligence-co-operation' on spam/abuse issues is
> also suggested.
Do we care, really? As far as I'm concerned, "do whatever works"
is good enough on the spam issue. And Google is *very* motivated to pay
attention to the spam issue.
>> 2. Modify its Groups interface to more clearly separate/identify
>> Usenet newsgroups from the internal, Google-only groups.
> It would also be helpful (in relation to USENET postings, if :-
> i) When posting, additional warnings were given that the comments made
> will be subject to global attention (and jurisdiction). (I.E a USENET
> posting or reply should be 2 click instead of the current 1 click
> process.)
*shrug* Putting up additional easy-to-push-through barriers
doesn't seem helpful to me. I'd rather leave the mechanics of this up to
whatever group within Google actually puts effort into understanding the
system.
> ii) A default signature was automatically attached like the following
> " This posting was made via Google Groups, Google does not endorse the
> views or intentions contained.".
Who would this benefit? It wouldn't benefit the posters, it would
only stigmatize them (and annoy somebody like me, who hates having my body
messed with). And I don't think this would help Google, either.
>> 3. Improve its spam and abuse detection and removal process with
>> respect to Usenet postings.
> (The following might be controversial)
> It is also suggested, that for 'abuse' not generated within Google, a
> policy of 'delete on report' is adopted if the 'abusive' material is
> from, addressed at, or relates to an entity resident in a non 'Section
> 230' jurisdiction. Case law in the UK requires suggests that service
> providers are required to delete alleged libel promptly to avoid being
> sued, for example.
I'd rather leave this up to their internal teams as well.
>> 4. Manage newsgroup listings automatically by following the signed
>> control messages from authorized hierarchy managers.
> i) I would go further, and say that Google needs to respect 'verifiable'
> control messages in general including 'cancels' from reliable sources.
At this point, I wouldn't actively request news admins *in
general* should follow cancel messages. I certainly wouldn't request it
of Google. (Suggest, sure. They can be made to work.)
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
--
http://wiki.killfile.org/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tskirvin Skirv's Pictures
> The points have been re-ordered.
>> 1. Improve and support a formal interaction point between Usenet
>> and Google Groups administrators.
> This has been placed at the head of the list because much of what follows
> is impossible without it.
*nod* I actually think that this is the most important problem
too, because the rest of these issues will be solved if this can be
solved. But I was not the originator of the list, so I didn't want to
abuse my copy-editor role too much.
> i) As part of this, 'intelligence-co-operation' on spam/abuse issues is
> also suggested.
Do we care, really? As far as I'm concerned, "do whatever works"
is good enough on the spam issue. And Google is *very* motivated to pay
attention to the spam issue.
>> 2. Modify its Groups interface to more clearly separate/identify
>> Usenet newsgroups from the internal, Google-only groups.
> It would also be helpful (in relation to USENET postings, if :-
> i) When posting, additional warnings were given that the comments made
> will be subject to global attention (and jurisdiction). (I.E a USENET
> posting or reply should be 2 click instead of the current 1 click
> process.)
*shrug* Putting up additional easy-to-push-through barriers
doesn't seem helpful to me. I'd rather leave the mechanics of this up to
whatever group within Google actually puts effort into understanding the
system.
> ii) A default signature was automatically attached like the following
> " This posting was made via Google Groups, Google does not endorse the
> views or intentions contained.".
Who would this benefit? It wouldn't benefit the posters, it would
only stigmatize them (and annoy somebody like me, who hates having my body
messed with). And I don't think this would help Google, either.
>> 3. Improve its spam and abuse detection and removal process with
>> respect to Usenet postings.
> (The following might be controversial)
> It is also suggested, that for 'abuse' not generated within Google, a
> policy of 'delete on report' is adopted if the 'abusive' material is
> from, addressed at, or relates to an entity resident in a non 'Section
> 230' jurisdiction. Case law in the UK requires suggests that service
> providers are required to delete alleged libel promptly to avoid being
> sued, for example.
I'd rather leave this up to their internal teams as well.
>> 4. Manage newsgroup listings automatically by following the signed
>> control messages from authorized hierarchy managers.
> i) I would go further, and say that Google needs to respect 'verifiable'
> control messages in general including 'cancels' from reliable sources.
At this point, I wouldn't actively request news admins *in
general* should follow cancel messages. I certainly wouldn't request it
of Google. (Suggest, sure. They can be made to work.)
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
--
http://wiki.killfile.org/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tskirvin Skirv's Pictures
Evgenii Sputnik
Dec 28, 2012, 11:54:43 AM12/28/12
to
Problem is that Google do not needs this.
Google probably even forgot already they have Groups.
Also, they want to improve Google Groups, and Usenet is just an addition
to their Groups - many times ago, they just wanted to extract users from
Usenet newsgroups to fill with such users their GOOGLE Groups. Now, when
they sucked users from Usenet they wanted to suck, and converted such
users into users of "normal" Google Groups they see only very few options.
1) Save everything as it is already going.
(Best for Google - all groups saved, all users saved, people feel and
think Google Groups is the future of Usenet. Or, rather, Usenet is what
Google Groups used to be at the beginning of the Internet.
2) Discontinue Google Groups service. Just discontinue forever.
"Archives for your download available till the date...."
3) Make Google Groups a read - only service.
4) Remove Usenet groups from Google Groups entirely.
5) Set Usenet groups as read - only and stop archiving new articles.
(Then probably split Usenet archives to "Usenet archive".)
6) Combination of the above - mentioned also possible.
--
elspu...@gmail.com Evgenii Sputnik +79134596180
We should create misc.phone.mobile.android newsgroup....
Google probably even forgot already they have Groups.
Also, they want to improve Google Groups, and Usenet is just an addition
to their Groups - many times ago, they just wanted to extract users from
Usenet newsgroups to fill with such users their GOOGLE Groups. Now, when
they sucked users from Usenet they wanted to suck, and converted such
users into users of "normal" Google Groups they see only very few options.
1) Save everything as it is already going.
(Best for Google - all groups saved, all users saved, people feel and
think Google Groups is the future of Usenet. Or, rather, Usenet is what
Google Groups used to be at the beginning of the Internet.
2) Discontinue Google Groups service. Just discontinue forever.
"Archives for your download available till the date...."
3) Make Google Groups a read - only service.
4) Remove Usenet groups from Google Groups entirely.
5) Set Usenet groups as read - only and stop archiving new articles.
(Then probably split Usenet archives to "Usenet archive".)
6) Combination of the above - mentioned also possible.
--
elspu...@gmail.com Evgenii Sputnik +79134596180
We should create misc.phone.mobile.android newsgroup....
0 new messages