2nd RFD: comp.internet.services.google
Tim Skirvin
unmoderated group comp.internet.services.google
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
unmoderated Usenet newsgroup, comp.internet.services.google.
NEWSGROUPS LINE: comp.internet.services.google
comp.internet.services.google Search, Gmail, Groups, Maps, Picasa
DISCUSSION:
Much of the previous discussion was over the name; while no one name was
truly found to be perfect, comp.internet.services.google is, in this
proponent's opinion, both "good enough" and a good basis for a potential
future hierarchy.
Analyzing all discussion about a *.google.* group in news.groups.proposals
since this was first discussed in June, however, shows the following numbers:
In Favor, Will Read/Post 3
In Favor 3
Unknown/Vaguely Positive 7
Unknown/Vaguely Negative 3
Opposed 1
While these numbers seem positive in favor of "this is a good idea", the
numbers on their own are not promising. However, this proponent suggests
that this is because the previous RFD was crossposted to no non-administrative
newsgroups, so that nobody would be able to express interest. This second
RFD is crossposted to three more groups, and suggestions for places to
post pointers would be greatly appreciated.
RATIONALE: comp.internet.services.google
Google runs many of the Internet's most popular web services, including
Gmail, Youtube, Google News, Google Groups, Picasa, and of course its
primary search engine. The widespread use of Google's applications has
lead to regular discussions in all media about its influence on the world,
especially on Usenet which is closely tied to Google ever since its
acquisition of Dejanews in 2001. However, even with this connection, there
are few newsgroups in which to discuss any of Google's features, let alone
its impact on the rest of the online world.
This proposal aims to address this problem, utilizing an existing hierarchy
to discuss other internet applications (e.g., blogs, wikis, news sites).
CHARTER:
comp.internet.services.google is an unmoderated group dedicated to
discussing Google, both the services it provides and the company itself.
Posters are expected to abide by normal Usenet standards of decorum, and to
ignore articles intended to disrupt the group. The usual suspects are
prohibited (spam, binaries, direct advertising, etc.)
PROCEDURE:
For more information on the newsgroup creation process, please see:
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:creation
Those who wish to influence the development of this RFD and its final
resolution should subscribe to news.groups.proposals and participate in the
relevant threads in that newsgroup. This is both a courtesy to groups in
which discussion of creating a new group is off-topic as well as the best
method of making sure that one's comments or criticisms are heard.
All discussion of active proposals should be posted to news.groups.proposals.
To this end, the 'Followup-To' header of this RFD has been set to this group.
If desired by the readership of closely affected groups, the discussion
may be crossposted to those groups, but care must be taken to ensure
that all discussion appears in news.groups.proposals as well.
We urge those who would like to read or post in the proposed newsgroup
to make a comment to that effect in this thread; we ask proponents to
keep a list of such positive posts with the relevant message ID
(e.g., Barney Fife, <4JGdnb60fsMzHA7Z...@sysmatrix.net>).
Such lists of positive feedback for the proposal may constitute good
evidence that the group will be well-used if it is created.
DISTRIBUTION:
This document has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups (moderated)
news.groups.proposals (moderated)
alt.comp.google
alt.fan.dejanews
alt.internet.search-engines
PROPONENT:
Tim Skirvin <tski...@killfile.org>
CHANGE HISTORY:
2007-07-30 Informal Pre-RFD
2007-08-01 1st RFD
2007-08-15 2nd RFD
Tim Skirvin
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> unmoderated group comp.internet.services.google
> Sounds good to me, especially now that google.public.support.general
> is broken at the moment:
Google in general has seemed fairly broken lately. I haven't been
entirely sure what to make of it.
Anyway, I've listed you as a 'In Favor, Will Read/Post'; is that
accurate?
>> DISTRIBUTION:
>> This document has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>> news.announce.newgroups (moderated)
>> news.groups.proposals (moderated)
>> alt.comp.google
>> alt.fan.dejanews
>> alt.internet.search-engines
> I didn't know of the newsgroup alt.comp.google, which seems to be a
> fairly new newsgroup.
It's pretty new and was made during a recent round of discussion.
It doesn't seem to be doing all that well, though, because there hasn't
been much of a push to propagate the group (including to Google).
- Tim Skirvin (sk...@big-8.org)
--
http://www.big-8.org/ Big-8 Management Board
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
David Saur
> It's pretty new and was made during a recent round of discussion.
> It doesn't seem to be doing all that well, though, because there hasn't
> been much of a push to propagate the group (including to Google).
It's been on Google for awhile.
http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?lnk=nhpsfg&q=alt.comp.google&qt_s=Search+for+a+group
Group directory
All groups > Lookup: 'alt.comp.google'
alt.comp.google
Low activity, 2 subscribers, Usenet
Tim Skirvin
>> It's pretty new and was made during a recent round of discussion.
>> It doesn't seem to be doing all that well, though, because there hasn't
>> been much of a push to propagate the group (including to Google).
> It's been on Google for awhile.
Hmm, my mistake.
I'm curious, saur, would you use the proposed group if it
existed?
Tomi Häsä
> Tomi Häsä <tomi...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>> unmoderated group comp.internet.services.google
>
>> Sounds good to me, especially now that google.public.support.general
>> is broken at the moment:
>
> Google in general has seemed fairly broken lately. I haven't been
> entirely sure what to make of it.
>
> Anyway, I've listed you as a 'In Favor, Will Read/Post'; is that
> accurate?
Yes, it is.
By the way, I usually reply to questions, but sometimes I post news about Google as well. I have collected most of my news posts (years 2003-2007) I have posted to google.public.support.general to the below page(s), if interested:
Tim Skirvin
>> Anyway, I've listed you as a 'In Favor, Will Read/Post'; is that
>> accurate?
> Yes, it is.
Excellent!
If you can think of any other places we should post pointers,
please let me know.
DevilsPGD
tski...@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) wrote:
> Google in general has seemed fairly broken lately. I haven't been
>entirely sure what to make of it.
>
> Anyway, I've listed you as a 'In Favor, Will Read/Post'; is that
>accurate?
I tried to use Google Groups for a few of their internal groups. I
really tried. Just wanted to discuss Google Reader's new interface.
I couldn't get it to accept a post. I'm not sure if I should be
embarrassed, or just disappointed.
Put me down for will read, will post.
--
You can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than just a kind word.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
> ... If you can think of any other places we should post pointers,
>please let me know.
I've put a pointer to this thread in Tomi's thread on
"alt.comp.google" in google.public.support.general.
http://groups.google.com/group/google.public.support.general?hl=en
Marty
--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB) -- http://www.big-8.org
Unless otherwise indicated, I speak for myself, not for the Board.
Tomi Häsä
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:33:15 CST, tski...@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) wrote in <tskirvin.20070816191715$6d...@cairo.ks.uiuc.edu>:
>
>> ... If you can think of any other places we should post pointers,
>>please let me know.
>
> I've put a pointer to this thread in Tomi's thread on
> "alt.comp.google" in google.public.support.general.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/google.public.support.general?hl=en
Unfortunately, google.public.support.general has been broken this month, so in practise you need to cross-post your message to another newsgroup (I use alt.fan.dejanews, because DejaNews was acquired by Google in 2001):
http://groups.google.com/group/google.public.support.general/browse_frm/thread/a8fc9668e57674df/49e1ef6ba279c4d8#49e1ef6ba279c4d8
http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/pressrelease48.html
Adam H. Kerman
>NEWSGROUPS LINE: comp.internet.services.google
>DISCUSSION:
I object to Tim Skirvin taking over proponent duties from saur. I object
to the Board continuing the process of keeping the proposal alive.
saur didn't find support for the proposal by acting like a good proponent.
The proponent of alt.comp.google dropped the ball as expected.
What should the Board learn from this? That unless and until an active
proponent is found for a proposal, the proposal should be suspended.
An active proponent is someone well known on Usenet for discussing the
topic. An active proponent is enthusiastic about the topic, highly
motivated to encourage others to request creation of the group and then
post to it. An active proponent is someone who can be expected to
nurture the group until there are enough users for sustainable, on topic
discussion and continue with publicity efforts for many months.
Tim is none of these things. With no active proponent, a Big 8 Google
group will enjoy the same experience as the alt group or the recent
"Jericho" newsgroup, dead on arrival. "Believing" a group might just
work doesn't make it work as the "Jericho" group clearly illustrates.
Good proponents are the key factor between success and spam traps.
An active proponent is NOT someone who says, "Gee, wouldn't it be a good
idea for there to be a newsgroup on such-and-such topic. I don't
actually post on the topic myself and may not use the group if created,
but it sure would be nice to have."
Nor could a Google employee serve as proponent, for then the group would
be a vanity group, a newsgroup to promote the ideas or services of an
individual or his company.
Google, itself, should create support and user newsgroups to promote and
discuss its own services on a publicly-accessible News server it
administers. It's a very common thing to do. Google is behind the curve
by not offering this itself. The Web interface is no substitute.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mol...@canisius.edu> wrote in message news:13c9fqe...@news.supernews.com...
>> I've put a pointer to this thread in Tomi's thread on
>> "alt.comp.google" in google.public.support.general.
>> http://groups.google.com/group/google.public.support.general?hl=en
>Unfortunately, google.public.support.general has been broken this month, so in practise you need to cross-post your message to another newsgroup ...
OK. I see that my message did not get to the group.
I tried again just now using alt.test as part of the
crosspost.
I see the value of using alt.fan.dejanews, too.
Tomi Häsä
Could I be a proponent then? I don't work for Google. I have posted
the most amount of messages to google.public.support.general. I have
also participated in other official Google newsgroups and Google
discussion groups and in other Usenet newsgroups:
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=_WTxMxMAAACVb7Z6ih3sfoQfA9ho_D_RWMj6vob75xS36mXc24h6ww
http://groups.google.com/group/google.public.support.general/about
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=_WTxMxMAAACVb7Z6ih3sfoQfA9ho_D_RWMj6vob75xS36mXc24h6ww&group=google.public.support.general
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?show=more&enc_user=_WTxMxMAAACVb7Z6ih3sfoQfA9ho_D_RWMj6vob75xS36mXc24h6ww&group=Google-Groups-Guide
I guess people could see me as a Google enthuasist and as one kind of
proof I have advertised this discussion a bit in a few forums and in
one unofficial Google blog so far:
http://groups.google.com/group/google.public.support.general/browse_frm/thread/bd7fce0c7a86139f/#
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Groups-Basics/browse_frm/thread/a04f7cfadffb21c0/#
http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2007-08-17-n50.html
And I have also made two unofficial FAQs and other pages about Google:
http://gpsgfaq.googlepages.com/index.html
http://gpsgfaq.googlepages.com/groups_faq.html
http://gpsgfaq.googlepages.com/google_page_creator.html
http://gpsgfaq.googlepages.com/news_quotes_google.html
http://gpsgfaq.googlepages.com/
Adam H. Kerman
Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you were Google staff.
>I have posted the most amount of messages to google.public.support.general.
There are several considerations.
1) Is there a need for this newsgroup?
It's redundant of a brand-new alt group. Even though the proponent
dropped the ball, it's absurd to argue a need for a redundant newsgroup
in the Big 8 on the basis that the alt group failed. Someone could make
a success of the alt group.
2) What's the best name for it?
The alt group, despite the fact that the proponent dropped the ball, has
the virture of being correctly named with a shorter name than proposed for
the Big 8 newsgroup. Shorter is probably better.
3) Is a group specific to Google of Usenet-wide interest, or only of
interest to those who use Google's services?
This question comes up a lot when someone proposed a newsgroup to
discuss a particular network. Why is anyone who doesn't use that network
interested?
In Google's case, the answer may be, "Because Google offers a sucky Web
interface and no publicly-accessble News server to host groups users may
use to discuss Google services."
That answer is not a given. The Usenet audience for this newsgroup has
to be found on existing Usenet groups. google.public.* groups aren't
Usenet groups and those who post to them probably aren't in the audience
for the proposed group. If they were, then it becomes a question of
starting another google.public group on the Web system. It's still a
different medium.
If you want to take over as proponent, then my recommendation is to find
the audience for Google services discussion among users of computer
groups in alt and comp. Look for messages in which the particular Google
service is the PRIMARY topic of the message and not just incidentally
mentioned. If the message appears to have multiple primary topics, then
make a judgment as to whether the author would have chosen to post to
the proposed group if it had already been created rather than where he
posted it.
Finding and identifying the audience for a proposed group is called
Justification. It involves analysis and value judgment. It's far more
than just simple traffic analysis.
If you perform the Justification, then you will know if your efforts as
proponent have a chance at getting a successful group going. Promotion
of a newsgroup is real work and must be done consistently for months,
perhaps up to six months, before there are enough users for sustainable
discussion. Justification tells you Who is posting, What they are
posting, and Where you find the audience for promotion purposes.
The name question is important. I think alt.comp.google is the better
name. It's correctly named and short and to the point. (I might have
recommended a fourth-level hierarchy, but the proponent didn't ask.)
Because it has a workable name, the group can be salvaged. It has a slight
advantage that it's already created on a few servers.
Today, Big 8 groups lack the advantage of instant wide-spread
propagation after the newgroup is sent. Besides, promotion of the group
is still necessary to get people to post and it's the same effort
to get people to post or to get people to ask that the group be created
first, then post to it. These days, in the Big 8, people have to
request creation of new groups, ending the former advantage over alt.
My advice to you: If you are quite serious about being the proponent,
give it due consideration first.
1) Perform the Justification to see if you can be successful. Look for
recent discussion, three months back or so. I trust that you are an
expert searching for discussion with Google Groups!
2) Decide on the better name. If you like alt.comp.google, then promote
that group to get it more widely propagated and to get on-topic traffic.
I wouldn't take over alt.comp.google without an explicit agreement from
the Board that the Big 8 group has been withdrawn in support of your
efforts. Two groups is too much confusion for users and they could both
fail, quite frankly.
3) Starting today, after performing the Justification, participate in
active threads on Usenet (not the google.public groups) where Google is
discussed to get yourself better known. If you've decided to go with
alt.comp.google, then you can immediately start asking people to request
its creation. Be casual about it, perhaps by adding a .sig. You can
start a new thread in groups with Google discussion to promote
alt.comp.google, but I wouldn't do it more than once a month to avoid
wearing out your welcome. Participating in on-going Google discussion
and mentioning the new group in your followup AFTER answering the
question is better.
Let us know what you decide. I hope the Board cooperates. If you want to
revive alt.comp.google, we can help you further in alt.config.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<1187384343....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>:
>Could I be a proponent then? I don't work for Google. I have posted
>the most amount of messages to google.public.support.general. I have
>also participated in other official Google newsgroups and Google
>discussion groups and in other Usenet newsgroups ...
I think you would be an excellent proponent.
Tim believes in the worth of the proposal, so it
might be best to be a co-proponent with him.
Martijn Dekker
- M.
Tomi Häsä
wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:32:05 CST, Tomi Häsä <tomi.h...@gmail.com> wrote in
> <1187384343.271529.64...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >Could I be a proponent then? I don't work for Google. I have posted
> >the most amount of messages to google.public.support.general. I have
> >also participated in other official Google newsgroups and Google
> >discussion groups and in other Usenet newsgroups ...
>
> I think you would be an excellent proponent.
>
> Tim believes in the worth of the proposal, so it
> might be best to be a co-proponent with him.
OK. I'll be a co-proponent then!
>
> Marty
> --
> Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB) --http://www.big-8.org
> Unless otherwise indicated, I speak for myself, not for the Board.
I can't access http://www.big-8.org/ at the moment (IE7, WinXP,
Finland, ADSL), so I can't read the instructions for being a
proponent. I guess I need to try again later.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<1187440144.4...@a39g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
>> Tim believes in the worth of the proposal, so it
>> might be best to be a co-proponent with him.
>OK. I'll be a co-proponent then!
Sounds good.
I imagine Tim will accept your help.
>I can't access http://www.big-8.org/ at the moment (IE7, WinXP,
>Finland, ADSL), so I can't read the instructions for being a
>proponent. I guess I need to try again later.
I was able to access it just now.
Here is the mini-FAQ for proponents. Don't worry about
submitting revisions of the RFD. I imagine Tim will
take care of that part of the process.
What you bring to the table is a long-time dedication
to Google and the potential for helping attract other
users to the group.
<http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=faqs:mini_faq>:
=========================
Dear Proponent,
The Big-8 Management Board has published your RFD in news.announce.newgroups.
You must follow the discussion of the RFD in news.groups.proposals and answer
all reasonable questions about your proposal.
Unless you take an active part in the discussion, we will presume that you
have abandoned your proposal. We will then remove your RFD from our
active queue.
We do not expect you to respond to nonsense. If a question has already
been asked and answered, you may remain silent or give a pointer to where
your answer may be found.
When you prepare subsequent versions of the RFD, please take care to
preserve the format used in the n.a.n. version.
Please do not use Google groups to submit a new version of the RFD; Google
groups mangles e-mail addresses on purpose. Your subsequent versions must
contain all necessary contact information, keep the same format, and be in
plain text.
When you think it is time to publish a new edition of an RFD, submit it to
news.announce.newgroups as you did with the first edition.
When you think that your RFD is as good as it is going to get and are
ready to submit a final edition for the Board to vote on, change the RFD
to fit the format of a "Last Call for Comments." If the Board agrees that
the RFD is ready to be voted on, the Board will publish the final RFD/LCC
under its own name.
We're very grateful for your participation in the newsgroup creation
process for the Big-8 and wish you all success in the discussion of your
newsgroup idea.
The Big-Eight Management Board consists of the following members:
Tim Skirvin, Chair
Dave Sill, Vice-Chair
Brian Edmonds
James Farrar
Doug McLaren
Marty Moleski
Kathy Morgan
Jeremy Nixon
Thomas Lee
The moderators of news.announce.newgroups only publish posts
that are consistent with the policies set by the Board.
The board will be following the discussion in news.groups.proposals.
Some of us may, from time to time, make comments either in our own
name or on behalf of the board to clarify what the policies and
procedures are. Here, too, it may take some time for you to learn
how to distinguish the personal input of the board members from
clarification of official policy.
Proponents and their supporters need to work on attracting other
Usenet-savvy participants in two different phases of the process:
1. During the RFD: the more people whom you can persuade to
make a Usenet post about their interest in the proposed group,
the better the chances are that there will be a group of
people ready, willing, and able to use the group if it
is created. Seeing this kind of support is very valuable
in allaying fears that the group would not be well-used
if it were created.
2. After the RFD: the proponent and participants of the
group need to use all available means to make the group
known to its target audience: web pages, notes and/or
FAQs to aid newbies, use of signature files to draw
attention to the existence of the group, respectful
non-spam advertising in other forums, correspondence
with NSPs to persuade them to carry the group, etc.
If there is anything we can do to help you understand
and benefit from the process, please let us know.
Volunteers known as "Group Mentors" are also willing
to provide advice and counsel for you and your
supporters.
Big-8 Management Board
bo...@big-8.org
Group Mentors
men...@lists.big-8.org
============================
Marty
--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB) -- http://www.big-8.org
Thomas Lee
Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> writes
>saur didn't find support for the proposal by acting like a good
>proponent. The proponent of alt.comp.google dropped the ball as
>expected.
I'm slowly reading my way back in after a week away with no access to
email - I'm just responding to this one point.
It felt to me that saur dropped it a tad on the early side. We were
seeing some interest and there could be some value in this group. It's
worth at least exploring a bit further, before just dropping it. To that
end, I'm glad someone has taken over.
Thomas
--
Thomas Lee - t...@psp.co.uk
A member of, but not speaking for, The Big-8 Management Board
Adam H. Kerman
>On Aug 18, 5:33 am, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mole...@canisius.edu> wrote:
>>>Could I be a proponent then? I don't work for Google. I have posted
>>>the most amount of messages to google.public.support.general. I have
>>>also participated in other official Google newsgroups and Google
>>>discussion groups and in other Usenet newsgroups ...
>>I think you would be an excellent proponent.
>>Tim believes in the worth of the proposal, so it
>>might be best to be a co-proponent with him.
>OK. I'll be a co-proponent then!
Sigh. I just spotted a message from you last Thursday asking in
aioe.news.helpdesk that google.public.support.general be removed because
it's a private newsgroup. Obviously, a group with a namepart of "public"
can't be a private newsgroup. It's an institutional newsgroup. Now, aioe
creates a number of these in various top-level hierarchies without
actually arranging a feed, so there are always missing messages. I don't
think aioe should do this, but the News administrator gets to offer what
he likes. He told me once that he does this on behalf of a few users
whose News clients don't make it simple to use multiple News servers. As
you pointed out. google.public groups are only available using the sucky
Web interface anyway.
This isn't the way to be a proponent. You need to build support, not
erect barriers. Did you consider anything I said in the other message?
Tomi Häsä
> Sigh. I just spotted a message from you last Thursday asking in
> aioe.news.helpdesk that google.public.support.general be removed because
> it's a private newsgroup. Obviously, a group with a namepart of "public"
> can't be a private newsgroup. It's an institutional newsgroup. Now, aioe
> creates a number of these in various top-level hierarchies without
> actually arranging a feed, so there are always missing messages. I don't
> think aioe should do this, but the News administrator gets to offer what
> he likes. He told me once that he does this on behalf of a few users
> whose News clients don't make it simple to use multiple News servers. As
> you pointed out. google.public groups are only available using the sucky
> Web interface anyway.
Isn't one important idea of newsgroups, that which ever newsserver you use, you can always use the same Message ID (or URL, if the newsgroup is archived by Google Groups) to point out a message that is the same on every newsserver? No newsserver is mirroring google.public.support.general, right?
Steve Bonine
> No newsserver is mirroring google.public.support.general, right?
Giganews has a group by that name. I have not tried posting on either
the Google version or the Giganews version to see if there might be a
disconnect.
Tomi Häsä
> Tomi Häsä wrote:
>
>> No newsserver is mirroring google.public.support.general, right?
>
> Giganews has a group by that name.
Does Giganews mirror google.public.support.general, I mean the original version i.e. the official version i.e. the web version? I don't have a credit card, and it seems like you need one to try the "3-Day Free Trial", because first you need to select one of the plans (Diamond, Platinum, etc.) and there you asked for a credit card number:
Steve Bonine
> "Steve Bonine" <s...@pobox.com> wrote in message news:13cjjrt...@news.supernews.com...
>> Tomi Häsä wrote:
>>
>>> No newsserver is mirroring google.public.support.general, right?
>> Giganews has a group by that name.
>
> Does Giganews mirror google.public.support.general, I mean the original version i.e. the official version i.e. the web version?
I examined the contents of the two groups and conclude that the thing
you see on Google named "google.public.support.general" and the thing
you see on Giganews with the same name are not connected. A recent post
by you is in the Google incarnation of the group, but not the Giganews
version; I don't see the latest article from the Giganews version on
Google. Perhaps at one point in its history the group was public and
that is no longer the case. (I'm using "public" to mean "generally
available on Usenet servers".)
Adam H. Kerman
As far as I know, it's impossible to exchange a feed with Google, so
Google Groups Web interface users won't see messages posted to
google.public.support.general on News servers and News server users
won't see messages posted by Google Groups web users.
Because Google Groups is a Web site and won't exchange a feed with News
servers, google.public.support.general is a Web forum, not a newsgroup.
A newsgroup created on various News servers with the same name is a
separate entity. The Web forum doesn't affect the newsgroup.
Whether you or I think any newsgroups should have been named into the
google.* top-level hierarchy is irrelevant.
The group exists. It's quite well used. It's created on 22 of 54 News
servers checked by the 2Rowdy newsgroup propagation search engine. You
were wrong for requesting its removal and your action harms possible
promotion of another newsgroup to discuss Google.
With that much propagation and a significant level of usage, it's not
controversial that it's a Usenet group despite the sucky name.
Tomi Häsä
> Tomi Häsä wrote:
>> Does Giganews mirror google.public.support.general, I mean the original
>> version i.e. the official version i.e. the web version?
>
> I examined the contents of the two groups and conclude that the thing
> you see on Google named "google.public.support.general" and the thing
> you see on Giganews with the same name are not connected. A recent post
> by you is in the Google incarnation of the group, but not the Giganews
> version; I don't see the latest article from the Giganews version on
> Google. Perhaps at one point in its history the group was public and
> that is no longer the case. (I'm using "public" to mean "generally
> available on Usenet servers".)
It has never been public. There has always been only the web version.
Google has never given public NNTP access to its own newsserver.
Tomi Häsä
message news:d8ujc39ddlthr37qk...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:24:37 CST, Tomi Häsä <tomi...@gmail.com>
> wrote in news.groups.proposals:
>
>> No newsserver is mirroring google.public.support.general, right?
>
I can't access news.xs4all.nl. Does it mirror the official
google.public.support.general newsgroup at
http://groups.google.com/group/google.public.support.general/ ?
Tomi Häsä
news:46c9fee9$0$97264$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
> Because Google Groups is a Web site and won't exchange a feed with News
> servers, google.public.support.general is a Web forum, not a newsgroup.
The official google.public.support.general at
http://groups.google.com/group/google.public.support.general/
is a private newsgroup in the sense it is not propagated to other
newsservers and Google uses its own newsserver to host it and you can
access it with a web browser. There should not be two versions of the same
newsgroup as people get confused which newsgroup you are talking about.
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Because Google Groups is a Web site and won't exchange a feed with News
>>servers, google.public.support.general is a Web forum, not a newsgroup.
>The official google.public.support.general at
>http://groups.google.com/group/google.public.support.general/
>is a private newsgroup in the sense it is not propagated to other
>newsservers and Google uses its own newsserver to host it and you can
>access it with a web browser.
As the News server in question isn't publicly accessible, you don't know
that google.public.support.general is created on it, not that it matters.
Google Groups users can access google.public.* groups only through the
Web site. There is no exchange of messages with Usenet. That makes them
Web forums and not newsgroups (private or not) in any sense.
>There should not be two versions of the same newsgroup as people get
>confused which newsgroup you are talking about.
That's not your call. Giganews and the 20 other News servers that
offer google.public.* groups get to offer Usenet however they like. If
they choose to name newsgroups after Google Groups Web forums, so be
it. google.public.support.general is propagated moderatedly well and active.
That makes it a Usenet group.
Can you accept this fact and stop requesting removal of these newsgroups from
additional servers?
I don't know why Aioe thought google.public.support.general was inactive. When
I looked at it on Giganews, I found over a thousand messages posted in the
last several months that weren't crossposted and appeared to be on topic.
Any action you take to get google.public groups removed from other News
servers conflicts with your duties as proponent. Despite your
disapproval, nearly the entire Usenet audience for the proposed Big 8 group
is in google.public.support.general.
Instead of trying to get this group removed, someone should promote its
creation on additional News servers. It's highly unlikely a new Big 8
group would ever see the level of traffic google.public.support.general
has. Despite the problematic name, it's vaguely successful.
Doug Freyburger
> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> > Because Google Groups is a Web site and won't exchange a feed with News
> > servers, google.public.support.general is a Web forum, not a newsgroup.
>
> The official google.public.support.general at
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/google.public.support.general/
>
> is a private newsgroup in the sense it is not propagated to other
> newsservers and Google uses its own newsserver to host it and you can
> access it with a web browser. There should not be two versions of the same
> newsgroup as people get confused which newsgroup you are talking about.
Vendor groups have long leaked out of their homes and
propagated to other servers. Google should be no different
in this regard than microsoft or any of the other company
names that appear in various lists. As is standard with
UseNet a group doesn't exist on one server, it exists on
all that carry it that are connected, and thinking it does not
propagate is not the same as knowing that it does not.
You've volunteered to be a co-proponent. You do understand
that includes working to improve propagation if/after the group
is created, right? It would be competition for traffic.
Tomi Häsä
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:21:15 CST, "Tomi Häsä" <tomi...@gmail.com>
> wrote in news.groups.proposals:
>
>>>> No newsserver is mirroring google.public.support.general, right?
>
>>> News.xs4all.nl carries it.
>
>>I can't access news.xs4all.nl. Does it mirror the official
>>google.public.support.general newsgroup
>
> Easynews (or Highwind) and it doesn't mirror g.s.p.g.
Then in that case it needs to be removed from news.xs4all.nl, because
google.public.support.general was created by Google in year 2001:
http://www.google.com/googlefriends/oct2001.html#talk
and it is a private newsgroup in the sense it is supposed to be accessed
only with a web browser through Google's own service called Google Groups
and it can cause confusion if there are two kinds of newsgroups, the
public ones (can be accessed with newsservers) and the original, official,
"private" (or "special") one, that is hosted by Google using Google
Groups.
Tomi Häsä
news:46cb2d21$0$97274$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
> tomi...@gmail.com wrote:
> As the News server in question isn't publicly accessible, you don't know
> that google.public.support.general is created on it, not that it
> matters.
Google Groups says this about google.public.support.general:
"This is a Usenet group"
http://groups.google.com/group/google.public.support.general/about
> Google Groups users can access google.public.* groups only through the
> Web site. There is no exchange of messages with Usenet. That makes them
> Web forums and not newsgroups (private or not) in any sense.
You can post to
http://groups.google.com/group/google.public.support.general/
with a Usenet newsreader as you can see in this example:
"Google acquired DejaNews in February 2001, so the first version of Google
Groups (Google Groups 1, GG1) used DejaNews technology. Google Groups 1
was a Usenet newsgroup archive service and a web-based Usenet newsreader."
http://gpsgfaq.googlepages.com/groups_faq.html#versionhistory
So when google.public.support.general was created in 2001, Google Groups
(version GG1) only understood Usenet newsgroups, so
google.public.support.general is a Usenet newsgroup.
> That's not your call. Giganews and the 20 other News servers that
> offer google.public.* groups get to offer Usenet however they like. If
> they choose to name newsgroups after Google Groups Web forums, so be
> it. google.public.support.general is propagated moderatedly well and
> active.
> That makes it a Usenet group.
The company (or organization) who has created its newsgroups in the first
place can also make decisions. For example Mozilla has created local
newsgroups that are not propagated to other Usenet servers:
"The mozilla.* hierarchy is a local news hierarchy only available through
news.mozilla.org and is not propagated to other Usenet servers."
http://www.mozilla.org/community/developer-forums.html
So why can't Google also choose where to propagate its newsgroups, if
anywhere? Shouldn't newsserver owners respect the decisions of the
companies and organizations who create their local, private or "special"
newsgroups?
And also, google.public.support.general is not listed in the official
Authoritative Active File of newsgroups:
William Kronert
> "Tomi Häsä" <tomi.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The official google.public.support.general at
>> is a private newsgroup in the sense it is not propagated to other
>> newsservers and Google uses its own newsserver to host it and you can
>> access it with a web browser. There should not be two versions of the same
>> newsgroup as people get confused which newsgroup you are talking about.
> Vendor groups have long leaked out of their homes and
> propagated to other servers. Google should be no different
> in this regard than microsoft or any of the other company
> names that appear in various lists. As is standard with
> UseNet a group doesn't exist on one server, it exists on
> all that carry it that are connected, and thinking it does not
> propagate is not the same as knowing that it does not.
Perhaps google has changed its rules regarding their google.*
newsgroups. Since we peer directly with Google (as does Giganews), I can
tell you that Google's news server had been feeding us articles in the
google.* hierarchy until this past month when the traffic basically
stop.
The microsoft.public.* is for the public, feed out by Microsoft to
usenet and since we peer directly with micorosoft, I can tell you this is
true as well. Perhaps there microsoft.private.* newsgroups might have leak
out.
Bill
Christof Meerwald
> Count me in as: In Favor, Will Read/Post
me too: In Favor, Will Read/Post
Christof
--
http://cmeerw.org sip:cmeerw at cmeerw.org
mailto:cmeerw at cmeerw.org xmpp:cmeerw at cmeerw.org
Jeremy Nixon
> I examined the contents of the two groups and conclude that the thing
> you see on Google named "google.public.support.general" and the thing
> you see on Giganews with the same name are not connected. A recent post
> by you is in the Google incarnation of the group, but not the Giganews
> version; I don't see the latest article from the Giganews version on
> Google. Perhaps at one point in its history the group was public and
> that is no longer the case. (I'm using "public" to mean "generally
> available on Usenet servers".)
Giganews will add any old crap they can find to their group list so they
can use the large group count as a meaningless marketing claim. Their
incompetently maintained active file should not be used as an authoritative
example of anything.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>As the News server in question isn't publicly accessible, you don't know
>>that google.public.support.general is created on it, not that it
>>matters.
>Google Groups says this about google.public.support.general:
>"This is a Usenet group"
>http://groups.google.com/group/google.public.support.general/about
As I cannot find messages posted to google.public.support.general from Google
Groups Web site on a News server that created the group (you yourself made
the same observation), clearly, it's a Web forum and not a Usenet group.
>>Google Groups users can access google.public.* groups only through the
>>Web site. There is no exchange of messages with Usenet. That makes them
>>Web forums and not newsgroups (private or not) in any sense.
>You can post to
>http://groups.google.com/group/google.public.support.general/
>with a Usenet newsreader
No, I can't. That would be using a browser. I don't use a newsreader
with an integrated browser.
>>That's not your call. Giganews and the 20 other News servers that
>>offer google.public.* groups get to offer Usenet however they like. If
>>they choose to name newsgroups after Google Groups Web forums, so be
>>it. google.public.support.general is propagated moderatedly well and
>>active. That makes it a Usenet group.
>The company (or organization) who has created its newsgroups in the first
>place can also make decisions.
No, it can't. Usenet administration is decentralized. Every News site
decides for itself what set of newsgroups to offer its users.
>For example Mozilla has created local newsgroups that are not propagated
>to other Usenet servers:
I agree that it's possible to create newsgroups whose messages are not
distributed beyond the local network. It does not prevent newsgroups with
the very same name from being created on foreign News servers. [foreign
meaning "not on the local network", not "in a different country"]
>So why can't Google also choose where to propagate its newsgroups, if
>anywhere?
Google can choose whether messages posted by its users are distributed
to foreign News servers. It cannot decide what newsgroups may be created on
a foreign News server.
>Shouldn't newsserver owners respect the decisions of the companies and
>organizations who create their local, private or "special" newsgroups?
My opinion is irrelevant, as is yours. It's up to the News administrator
to decide what newsgroups to create.
Would you stop calling google.public groups "private"? As posting is
open to any Web user who registers, they aren't private. As there are no
feeds exchanged with News servers, they aren't newsgroups.
>And also, google.public.support.general is not listed in the official
>Authoritative Active File of newsgroups:
>ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/CONFIG/active
That file isn't official nor authoritative. Usenet has no officials and isn't
centrally administered. The active file is maintained with control messages
sent by hierarchy administrators (or proponents in unadministered hierarchies)
received by that News site. If the author of the control message checks that
the active file was updated as expected, then he'll know that his control
message was distributed to a foreign News server and was in good syntax.
Many hierarchies are maintained without control messages or haven't had
control messages sent in years. The active file reflects nothing more
than the result of the last control message received.
I object to the actions that you have taken to date promoting the removal
of google.public.support.general. These actions conflict with duties of
a possible proponent.
Adam H. Kerman
>Perhaps google has changed its rules regarding their google.*
>newsgroups. Since we peer directly with Google (as does Giganews), I can
>tell you that Google's news server had been feeding us articles in the
>google.* hierarchy until this past month when the traffic basically
>stop.
Can you please give sample Message-IDs of recent non-crossposted messages that
were posted through Google Groups to google.public.support.general that
were distributed to your News server? I find no examples on Giganews.
>The microsoft.public.* is for the public, feed out by Microsoft to
>usenet and since we peer directly with micorosoft, I can tell you this is
>true as well.
I wasn't aware that Microsoft had cooperative peering arrangements. In
fact I know of News administrators who have complained that their
requests for cooperative peering arrangements were denied, so they
removed all the microsoft.public.* groups. If you want to tell me your
contact in email, I'll pass it along.
Jeremy Nixon
> Vendor groups have long leaked out of their homes and
> propagated to other servers. Google should be no different
> in this regard than microsoft or any of the other company
> names that appear in various lists.
Microsoft's groups are officially and deliberately propagated to the public
feed, so that is pretty different.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Adam H. Kerman
I wouldn't have called google.public.support.general a Usenet group if
it were merely on Giganews.
William Kronert
>>Perhaps google has changed its rules regarding their google.*
>>newsgroups. Since we peer directly with Google (as does Giganews), I can
>>tell you that Google's news server had been feeding us articles in the
>>google.* hierarchy until this past month when the traffic basically
>>stop.
> Can you please give sample Message-IDs of recent non-crossposted messages that
> were posted through Google Groups to google.public.support.general that
> were distributed to your News server? I find no examples on Giganews.
As I mentioned above, Google might have changed there rules regarding the
google.public.* newsgroups since all the traffic has stop recently.
I have sent and e-mail to our peering contact at google to see if they
want the google.public.* newsgroups private or not. If so, the
google.public.* hierarchy will be removed from our active file.
I have included (not recently ID's since as I stated before, traffic has
stop) a couple message ID's that clearly show google propagating there
google.public.* newsgroups:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path:
textbe01-phx!hwmnpeer02.phx!hw-filter.phx!hwmnpeer01.phx!news.highwinds-media
.com!newsfeed.news2me.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!postnews.google.com!b75g2000hsg.
googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: google.public.support.general
Date: 4 Apr 2007 00:46:52 -0700
Message-ID: 1175672812....@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
Path:
textbe01-phx!hwmnpeer02.phx!hw-filter.phx!hwmnpeer01.phx!news.highwinds-media
.com!newsfeed.news2me.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!postnews.google.com!y66g2000hsf.
googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: google.public.support.general
Date: 4 Apr 2007 11:18:22 -0700
Message-ID: 1175710702.1...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>The microsoft.public.* is for the public, feed out by Microsoft to
>>usenet and since we peer directly with micorosoft, I can tell you this is
>>true as well.
> I wasn't aware that Microsoft had cooperative peering arrangements. In
> fact I know of News administrators who have complained that their
> requests for cooperative peering arrangements were denied, so they
> removed all the microsoft.public.* groups. If you want to tell me your
> contact in email, I'll pass it along.
In regards to the microsoft.public.* hierarchy, all you have to do is
check the paths in some of the messages to see Microsoft is propagating
there newsgroups via various peering arrangements and have been for many
years.
Bill
Michael Black
Are they really discussing google, or is it just junk posts?
The google version has been hit with junk posts in the past, and it's
cross-posted, which would seem to be how the messages propagate into
google. Tomi himself has been cross-posting recently with alt.fan.dejanews
in order to force the messages to appear in google.public.support.general
If there is actual discussion of google in the "rogue" version, then
it may be worth pursuing. But a newsgroup full of junk does not
make a healthy newsgroup.
I don't know wether I'm misinterpreting, but it's my impression over
the years that some newsservers have picked up rogue newsgroups simply
because the name has appeared in cross-posted messages. So there
actually is a mtl.freenet.org but there have been times when people
have decided that there must be an mtl.freenet newsgroup and tossed
that into their massively cross-posted message. I seem to recall
that at some point, dejanews and/or google treated mtl.freenet
as a legit newsgroup (it's not, it was never created), merely because
of the cross-posted messages. I've seen some other similar things,
where there is no such newsgroup but they "exist" on some servers
simply because of the cross-posted messages.
I should also point out that my previous ISP was CAM Internet. Before
they dropped newsgroups completely, there was a number of local
newsgroups, labelled cam.* Now, there is actually a regional
set of newsgroups set up as a cam.* hierarchy, based in Cambridge,
England. ANd that has caused problems in the past, when someone
would post to cam.general as part of a cross-post, assuming it
wsa the ISP here in Montreal rather than one in England.
This issue of two separate newsgroups with the same name sets
up the same situation.
Michael
Tomi Häsä
news:46cb6f53$0$97273$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
> tomi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>You can post to
>
>>http://groups.google.com/group/google.public.support.general/
>
>>with a Usenet newsreader
>
> No, I can't. That would be using a browser. I don't use a newsreader
> with an integrated browser.
At least I can post as proven in the example. Other people can try to do
the same.
>>The company (or organization) who has created its newsgroups in the
>>first
>>place can also make decisions.
>
> No, it can't.
Every company can make decisions. It's difficult to do business without
decisions. :)
> Would you stop calling google.public groups "private"? As posting is
> open to any Web user who registers, they aren't private. As there are no
> feeds exchanged with News servers, they aren't newsgroups.
How about "special" then (as I mentioned before in this discussion
thread), because they are meant to be accessed with a web browser using
Google Groups and Google doesn't tell at least to the great deal of public
how to access Google's newsserver(s) with a Usenet newsreader, so people
could use Usenet newsreaders instead of a web browser?
> I object to the actions that you have taken to date promoting the
> removal
> of google.public.support.general. These actions conflict with duties of
> a possible proponent.
If the newsserver mirrors the contents in
http://groups.google.com/group/google.public.support.general/
it doesn't need to be removed.
Chris Barnes
Side track issue - I have wondered why they do this.
msnews.microsoft.com, where the groups originate, is public and open to
everyone. Why bother propagating to Usenet itself when folks can go
directly to the main host?
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
ch...@txbarnes.com Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes
"Usenet really is all about standing around and hitting the ground
with clubs, on a spot where many years earlier a dead horse lay."
Tim Skirvin
> Could I be a proponent then?
If you're still interested, drop me a mail and we'll work out the
details. But I wouldn't worry overly much about any proclamations of "a
proponent must be XXX"; as long as you're willing and able to work to
promote the group, you're most of the way there. And based on your past
experience, I'd guess that you're both willing and able.
- Tim Skirvin (sk...@big-8.org)
--
http://www.big-8.org/ Big-8 Management Board
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
Adam H. Kerman
>Jeremy Nixon (jer...@exit109.com) writes:
>>Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>I examined the contents of the two groups and conclude that the thing
>>>you see on Google named "google.public.support.general" and the thing
>>>you see on Giganews with the same name are not connected. A recent post
>>>by you is in the Google incarnation of the group, but not the Giganews
>>>version; I don't see the latest article from the Giganews version on
>>>Google. Perhaps at one point in its history the group was public and
>>>that is no longer the case. (I'm using "public" to mean "generally
>>>available on Usenet servers".)
>>Giganews will add any old crap they can find to their group list so they
>>can use the large group count as a meaningless marketing claim. Their
>>incompetently maintained active file should not be used as an authoritative
>>example of anything.
>What nobody has clarified is what the content of this newsgroup is.
>Are they really discussing google, or is it just junk posts?
When I looked at the group on Giganews, I saw quite a lot of on-topic
discussion; not much of it was cross-posted.
>The google version has been hit with junk posts in the past, and it's
>cross-posted, which would seem to be how the messages propagate into
>google. Tomi himself has been cross-posting recently with alt.fan.dejanews
>in order to force the messages to appear in google.public.support.general
>If there is actual discussion of google in the "rogue" version, then
>it may be worth pursuing. But a newsgroup full of junk does not
>make a healthy newsgroup.
>I don't know wether I'm misinterpreting, but it's my impression over
>the years that some newsservers have picked up rogue newsgroups simply
>because the name has appeared in cross-posted messages.
Does it matter what criteria several servers used when creating the
group? Do we know that google.public groups never exchanged feeds
between Google Groups and News servers despite what isn't being done now?
Tim Skirvin
> Analyzing all discussion about a *.google.* group in news.groups.proposals
> since this was first discussed in June, however, shows the following numbers:
> In Favor, Will Read/Post 3
> In Favor 3
> Unknown/Vaguely Positive 7
> Unknown/Vaguely Negative 3
> Opposed 1
Current numbers:
In Favor, Will Read/Post 7
In Favor 2
Unknown/Vaguely Positive 8
Unknown/Vaguely Negative 4
Unknown 2
Opposed 2
I'm not sure where all this stands in relation to alt.comp.google.
I still think that a Big-8 group would be a good idea, but I suspect that
I could be talked out of it.
Marcel Beaudoin
news:fahgf2$11a$1...@news.tamu.edu:
> Side track issue - I have wondered why they do this.
> msnews.microsoft.com, where the groups originate, is public and open to
> everyone. Why bother propagating to Usenet itself when folks can go
> directly to the main host?
Because there are people that like to use UseNet. It costs MS very little
(none??) to allow the groups to propagate outside of its private servers.
--
Marcel
Dave Sill
I no longer support creating a Big 8 Google group. The alt group is
catching on, more or less, and even though it's poorly named, I don't
think it's bad enough that it needs fixing.
--
Dave Sill, not speaking for the board
William Kronert
> I have sent and e-mail to our peering contact at google to see if they
> want the google.public.* newsgroups private or not. If so, the
> google.public.* hierarchy will be removed from our active file.
To follow through on this - I did receive an e-mail from our google
peering contact. Basically the google.* hiearchy is private, google will
not feed it outside of google nor will they accept articles from the
outside. It has been removed from our active file.
Bill
Doug Freyburger
>
> >> Vendor groups have long leaked out of their homes and
>
> > Microsoft's groups are officially and deliberately propagated to the public
> > feed, so that is pretty different.
>
> Side track issue - I have wondered why they do this.
> msnews.microsoft.com, where the groups originate, is public and open to
> everyone.
One question with comp.internet.services.google is why have
one in the Big-8 when there's already one under alt as well as
one under google. You question of why anyone running
discussions using software other than UseNet is the flip side
of the same coin in one view - What borders are where in a
world where web browsers can display UseNet articles ...
> Why bother propagating to Usenet itself when folks can go
> directly to the main host?
Because UseNet is designed to propagate. Make a local
newsgroup and use enough default settings and its articles will
flow to other servers. Specifically chosing to keep a local
hierarchy local is a choice that some places make, but once
you're using UseNet for your discussion group the question is
far more why keep it local once you've selected using UseNet
software.
One reason I don't object to a group in the Big-8 is Google
apparently tried to retroactively make their group private by
cutting the flow of articles from it. As such the existence of
that group is retroactively irrelevant to this issue and it is
hilarious to laugh at Google for attempting to take retroactive
action when that doesn't work on UseNet.
As to competition with the alt group, I am on the fence about
the Big-8 standing on its own vs. cometing groups drawing
traffic from each other.
Doug Freyburger
> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> > tomi.h...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> So when google.public.support.general was created in 2001, Google Groups
> (version GG1) only understood Usenet newsgroups, so
> google.public.support.general is a Usenet newsgroup.
Since it was created as a UseNet group, they made that decision
in 2001.
> The company (or organization) who has created its newsgroups in the first
> place can also make decisions.
No. They can only make *one* decision. They decided when they
created the group that it was available through their feeds. At that
point *other* companies got to chose to carry it. Google can
retroactively cut the group from their feed, but that is very much
*not* the same thing as retroactively making a decision on behalf
of every other company and server that ever decided to carry it.
> For example Mozilla has created local
> newsgroups that are not propagated to other Usenet servers:
>
> "The mozilla.* hierarchy is a local news hierarchy only available through
> news.mozilla.org and is not propagated to other Usenet servers."http://www.mozilla.org/community/developer-forums.html
Exactly - They decided at the time the groups were created that
they would be local.
> So why can't Google also choose where to propagate its newsgroups, if
> anywhere? Shouldn't newsserver owners respect the decisions of the
> companies and organizations who create their local, private or "special"
> newsgroups?
Because while Google can decide whether it feeds the data, it
can't decide for any other company.
They could issue an rmgroup and then go through the usual hunt
and seek process to find other servers that carry it and work at
convincing them to honor the rmgroup request. By the way, that's
what will happen as the result of the discussion about removing
dead Big-8 groups as well - Some will honor the rmgroup
automatically, some will not.
I will repeat that by signing up as a co-proponent one of your
duties after creation will be parallel to that process - Go around
trying to convince sites to add the new group. Been there, done
that.
> And also, google.public.support.general is not listed in the official
> Authoritative Active File of newsgroups:
>
> ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/CONFIG/active
That should help should they decide to go through the process.
Jeremy Nixon
> Does it matter what criteria several servers used when creating the
> group? Do we know that google.public groups never exchanged feeds
> between Google Groups and News servers despite what isn't being done now?
When Google started Google Groups, I was their first feed, so I've been
feeding them from day minus-one, and they never indicated to me that
google.* was meant to be anything other than private. Had it been a
public hierarchy I would have added it to my servers -- at that point,
they were, after all, a paying customer.
That doesn't mean they didn't change their minds later on after they
stopped communicating with their peers, of course.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Jeremy Nixon
> To follow through on this - I did receive an e-mail from our google
> peering contact. Basically the google.* hiearchy is private, google will
> not feed it outside of google nor will they accept articles from the
> outside. It has been removed from our active file.
Thanks for checking on that. It can be like spinning a roulette wheel
whether you get any reply from anyone there or not, so I honestly didn't
even think to try.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Jim Riley
wrote:
>Jeremy Nixon wrote:
>> Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Vendor groups have long leaked out of their homes and
>>> propagated to other servers. Google should be no different
>>> in this regard than microsoft or any of the other company
>>> names that appear in various lists.
>>
>> Microsoft's groups are officially and deliberately propagated to the public
>> feed, so that is pretty different.
>Side track issue - I have wondered why they do this.
>msnews.microsoft.com, where the groups originate, is public and open to
>everyone. Why bother propagating to Usenet itself when folks can go
>directly to the main host?
When Microsoft started the hierarchy they didn't have enough
bandwidth, so it kind of slow accessing their servers. Some ISP's
started doing suck feeds and propagating articles, since that was more
efficient than having their customers access the MS servers directly.
With most reader software, it is somewhat more effort to access a
bunch of individual servers than it is a single server. With a single
server, you simply need to subscribe to a group.
--
Jim Riley
Adam H. Kerman
>>>You can post to
>>>http://groups.google.com/group/google.public.support.general/
>>>with a Usenet newsreader
>>No, I can't. That would be using a browser. I don't use a newsreader
>>with an integrated browser.
>At least I can post as proven in the example. Other people can try to do
>the same.
You haven't been able to post to it, so you crossposted into it. It's not a
newsgroup and it's not usable with a newsreader.
>>>The company (or organization) who has created its newsgroups in the first
>>>place can also make decisions.
>>No, it can't.
>Every company can make decisions. It's difficult to do business without
>decisions. :)
This would be an example of Giganews, a company independent of Google,
making a decision that Google has no power to influence. Same applies to any
other News server that has created google.public groups.
>>Would you stop calling google.public groups "private"? As posting is
>>open to any Web user who registers, they aren't private. As there are no
>>feeds exchanged with News servers, they aren't newsgroups.
>How about "special" then (as I mentioned before in this discussion
>thread), because they are meant to be accessed with a web browser using
>Google Groups and Google doesn't tell at least to the great deal of public
>how to access Google's newsserver(s) with a Usenet newsreader, so people
>could use Usenet newsreaders instead of a web browser?
How about calling them Web forums to emphasize that they aren't Usenet?
Typically, they would be called institutional newsgroups, groups specific to
a company or a university, but the google.public groups aren't typical.
(Former institutional newsgroups? De-institutionalized newsgroups?) As long
as Google isn't cooperating by exchanging a feed and as long as the groups
Google maintains aren't on a public News server, google.public groups on
News server are ordinary Usenet groups in an unadministered hiearchy.
>>I object to the actions that you have taken to date promoting the removal
>>of google.public.support.general. These actions conflict with duties of a
>>possible proponent.
>If the newsserver mirrors the contents in
>http://groups.google.com/group/google.public.support.general/
>it doesn't need to be removed.
You aren't the News administrator. It's not your call to make. As these are
active newsgroups with on-topic discussion and no excessive amount of
crossposting and there's no institutional News server at Google to tell
users to use instead, removing them is bad policy.
I'm ready to take the position that encouraging wider propagation of active
google.public groups would be good policy. alt.comp.google should be
ignored; let it fail. It remains my position that this Big 8 proposal should
be withdrawn as the proposed group is redundant.
Tomi Häsä
news:13col16...@corp.supernews.com...
> Tim Skirvin wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure where all this stands in relation to
>> alt.comp.google.
>
> I no longer support creating a Big 8 Google group. The alt group is
> catching on, more or less, and even though it's poorly named, I don't
> think it's bad enough that it needs fixing.
Someone mentioned that the two newsgroups (comp.internet.services.google
and alt.comp.google) could
"fragment the discussion and perhaps doom both of the groups"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.comp.google/browse_frm/thread/96ef7ade2ffce10a/5210a0d07cfe1aaf#5210a0d07cfe1aaf
so maybe we could see later if there is a need for the comp.* group and
that of course means I cancel from being a co-proponent (which I wasn't in
the sense I don't think I was "officially" mentioned as such yet).
William Kronert
In thinking back, I really should have check with Google prior to adding
the groups. Sometime ago the google.* hierarchy was being sent to us by
google. I notice the groups were hitting the high end of our unwanted
newsgroup log files that was what initially brought my attention to these
groups.
So I check to make sure that the traffic wasn't some type of flood and to
see if they were un-moderated before I added them. The groups seem to
have a lot of on topic traffic and caught the attention of some our users.
Oh well, never was meant to be propagated by google.
Bill
Chris Barnes
> As to competition with the alt group, I am on the fence about
> the Big-8 standing on its own vs. cometing groups drawing
> traffic from each other.
Personally, I hate alt. groups and have no use for them. A google
discussion group is something I would be mildly interested in, but so
long as it exists in the alt. heirachy, it might as well not exist at all.
Kjetil Torgrim Homme
>
> Personally, I hate alt. groups and have no use for them. A google
> discussion group is something I would be mildly interested in, but
> so long as it exists in the alt. heirachy, it might as well not
> exist at all.
I agree fully with the above. I'll subscribe to a Big8 group, but
won't bother to ask my provider to add the alt-group.
--
Kjetil T.
Marcel Beaudoin
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>> As to competition with the alt group, I am on the fence about
>> the Big-8 standing on its own vs. cometing groups drawing
>> traffic from each other.
>
> Personally, I hate alt. groups and have no use for them. A google
> discussion group is something I would be mildly interested in, but so
> long as it exists in the alt. heirachy, it might as well not exist at
> all.
Why the hate?? If it is propogating well, and the proponent is doing a good
job of getting other servers to carry the group, an alt. group is
equivalent to a big-8 group.
--
Marcel
Adam H. Kerman
>Doug Freyburger wrote:
>>As to competition with the alt group, I am on the fence about
>>the Big-8 standing on its own vs. cometing groups drawing
>>traffic from each other.
>Personally, I hate alt. groups and have no use for them. A google
>discussion group is something I would be mildly interested in, but so
>long as it exists in the alt. heirachy, it might as well not exist at all.
alt newsgroups are international, same as Big 8 groups. Like any other
international newsgroup, it depends on the collection of regulars, what
they post, how they interact. Whether a new group is in alt or Big 8
is not predictive of whether the proponent will actively promote the
group until on-topic discussion is sustainable.
alt.comp.google happens to be reasonably named.
"I have no use for alt groups" isn't an argument for newgrouping
comp.internet.services.google that is redundant of alt.comp.google and
google.public.support.general.
Steve Bonine
> "I have no use for alt groups" isn't an argument for newgrouping
> comp.internet.services.google that is redundant of alt.comp.google and
> google.public.support.general.
Contrast this statement to your opinion that administrators of news
servers make their own decisions as to what newsgroups to carry.
Certainly individual newsgroup users have the privilege of deciding
which hierarchies to participate in.
The point of this subthread is that there is a population of people (two
of whom have posted in news.groups.proposals) who will not participate
in an alt group on Google. So "I have no use for alt groups" *is* an
argument for creating comp.internet.services.google. The question is
whether it's a compelling argument.
On the one hand, you've got a population of people who won't, or can't,
participate in an alt group. That's a reason to create a big-8 group.
On the other hand, having a group in big-8 and alt means redundancy.
This is A Bad Thing since it either fragments the discussion or results
in unnecessary crossposting.
My personal inclination is that the problems created by having two
groups are worse than the problems imposed on people who can't/won't
participate in alt groups. But I do understand the feelings of people
who don't want to participate in alt groups.
PS: I consider the fact that there exists a web forum on Google support
completely irrelevant to whether there should be a Usenet group. If
Google was willing to feed the newsgroup to Usenet, it might be a factor
in whether a Usenet group should be created . . . but they won't, so
it's not.
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>"I have no use for alt groups" isn't an argument for newgrouping
>>comp.internet.services.google that is redundant of alt.comp.google and
>>google.public.support.general.
>Contrast this statement to your opinion that administrators of news
>servers make their own decisions as to what newsgroups to carry.
Why? A proposed Big 8 group redundant of an alt group is never justified
on the basis of some user refusing to use any alt group. Redundant
newsgroups don't improve conversation if they split up discussion of the
same topic. That results in less total discussion; bad for Usenet.
>Certainly individual newsgroup users have the privilege of deciding
>which hierarchies to participate in.
It's a right, not a privilege. Still cannot and does not justify
redundant newsgroups.
>The point of this subthread is that there is a population of people (two
>of whom have posted in news.groups.proposals) who will not participate
>in an alt group on Google. So "I have no use for alt groups" *is* an
>argument for creating comp.internet.services.google. The question is
>whether it's a compelling argument.
>On the one hand, you've got a population of people who won't, or can't,
>participate in an alt group. That's a reason to create a big-8 group.
Two people not representative of the Usenet community. C'mon, Steve.
>On the other hand, having a group in big-8 and alt means redundancy.
>This is A Bad Thing since it either fragments the discussion or results
>in unnecessary crossposting.
>My personal inclination is that the problems created by having two
>groups are worse than the problems imposed on people who can't/won't
>participate in alt groups. But I do understand the feelings of people
>who don't want to participate in alt groups.
Glad we agree on something.
>PS: I consider the fact that there exists a web forum on Google support
>completely irrelevant to whether there should be a Usenet group.
<aol>Me too!</aol>
>If Google was willing to feed the newsgroup to Usenet, it might be a
>factor in whether a Usenet group should be created . . . but they won't,
>so it's not.
I agree. Google has taken itself out of the equation.
Nevertheless, I consider google.public.support.general to be a Usenet
group because it's created on Giganews and a couple dozen other servers.
I absolutely would not consider it a Usenet group if it existed only on
Google Groups. At the moment, it's not even a Web forum on Google Groups
since there's no posting. That Google abruptly stopped exchanging a feed
four months ago and shut off posting and is generally not cooperating
doesn't change its status as a Usenet group on genuine News servers.
Have you looked at the group? It's actually active despite Google.
David Saur
> Nevertheless, I consider google.public.support.general to be a Usenet
> group because it's created on Giganews and a couple dozen other servers.
As per http://groupsearch.aacity.net/engine.html it's on 22 servers.
alt.comp.google is on 24.
Steve Bonine
> Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On the one hand, you've got a population of people who won't, or can't,
>> participate in an alt group. That's a reason to create a big-8 group.
>
> Two people not representative of the Usenet community. C'mon, Steve.
I didn't say that they were "representative of the Usenet community". I
only stated that the population exists. It's certainly bigger than the
two individuals who posted here.
Years ago, this population was significant. A lot of corporate and
academic news sources did not carry the alt hierarchy, and a lot of
Usenet users received their feeds from these sources, so there were a
lot of folks who couldn't participate in a newsgroup in alt. This has
changed. While there are still people who can't or won't participate in
an alt group, my guess is that this population is now a small percentage
of the user population.
The thing that bothers me in this [Google group] situation is that it
suggests that there may never be another newsgroup created in the Big-8.
In this case, someone came up with an idea for a new group. Please, I
don't want to get into the useless discussion of whether the idea was
"poached" from alt; the point is that the idea for a new newsgroup was
proposed. At that point, someone issued a cmsg for an alt group on the
topic. In this [Google] case, that individual has stated that he did it
as a joke, but again this fact is irrelevant; it was done. Now we're in
the position where there's already an alt group, it seems to be doing
OK, so there's something that makes a big-8 group redundant.
Is this going to happen every single time that a decent topic is found
for a new newsgroup? If so, and the decision is made never to create a
redundant big-8 group, there will never be any new big-8 groups.
Please note that I'm not suggesting that a redundant big-8 group be
created; just the opposite; my opinion is that the existing alt group
should be promoted and the big-8 creation aborted. I don't have a
suggestion on how to solve this issue of the RFD process in the big-8
taking so long that an alt group can be created, propagated, and
successful before the big-8 group gets off the ground.
(snip)
> Nevertheless, I consider google.public.support.general to be a Usenet
> group because it's created on Giganews and a couple dozen other servers.
> I absolutely would not consider it a Usenet group if it existed only on
> Google Groups. At the moment, it's not even a Web forum on Google Groups
> since there's no posting. That Google abruptly stopped exchanging a feed
> four months ago and shut off posting and is generally not cooperating
> doesn't change its status as a Usenet group on genuine News servers.
>
> Have you looked at the group? It's actually active despite Google.
I don't consider it to be a Usenet group simply because it's offered by
Giganews. If that were the criteria for a group, news.groups.ai.shells
and a few thousand other bogus groups that Giganews carries would have
to be considered legitimate. [Giganews has news.groups.ai.shells and a
few dozen other bogus groups beginning with "news.groups." in their
active file.]
Google.public.support.general does not fulfill the need for a newsgroup
in which to discuss Google. It's not appropriate to promote it as a
generally-available Usenet group; people will assume that it and the web
forum accessible at Google are the same, and they never will be unless
Google re-reverses their decision to feed it to Usenet. I'd rather see
Giganews pull it from their active file [looking around for flying pigs]
to eliminate the confusion. Given that the alt group will not go away,
I'd rather see people spending their effort promoting that group than
perpetrating the confusing situation with the incarnation of
google.public.support.general that Giganews and a few other servers provide.
Dave Balderstone
<s...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Is this going to happen every single time that a decent topic is found
> for a new newsgroup? If so, and the decision is made never to create a
> redundant big-8 group, there will never be any new big-8 groups.
Why is that a problem?
Adam H. Kerman
>>>On the one hand, you've got a population of people who won't, or can't,
>>>participate in an alt group. That's a reason to create a big-8 group.
>>Two people not representative of the Usenet community. C'mon, Steve.
>I didn't say that they were "representative of the Usenet community". I
>only stated that the population exists. It's certainly bigger than the
>two individuals who posted here.
>Years ago, this population was significant.
Irrelevant in a situation today in which Big 8 control messages are no
longer widely honored.
>The thing that bothers me in this [Google group] situation is that it
>suggests that there may never be another newsgroup created in the Big-8.
Why? Redundancy isn't an issue if a proposal isn't, well, redundant.
>In this case, someone came up with an idea for a new group. Please, I
>don't want to get into the useless discussion of whether the idea was
>"poached" from alt; the point is that the idea for a new newsgroup was
>proposed. At that point, someone issued a cmsg for an alt group on the
>topic.
Steve, if you DON'T want to get into a useless discussion, then stop
posting false information. I've corrected you on this several times.
saur's proposal was made several weeks after the alt group was
newgrouped. He didn't check.
Kindly state that you understand the order and withdraw your false
allegation that the alt newgroup was sent after saur made his propoposal.
>In this [Google] case, that individual has stated that he did it
>as a joke, but again this fact is irrelevant; it was done. Now we're in
>the position where there's already an alt group, it seems to be doing
>OK, so there's something that makes a big-8 group redundant.
>Is this going to happen every single time that a decent topic is found
>for a new newsgroup? If so, and the decision is made never to create a
>redundant big-8 group, there will never be any new big-8 groups.
If there's already a newsgroup, then a decent topic HASN'T been found
for a new group. You know, in alt.config, we always advise proponents of
redundancy.
>Please note that I'm not suggesting that a redundant big-8 group be
>created; just the opposite; my opinion is that the existing alt group
>should be promoted and the big-8 creation aborted. I don't have a
>suggestion on how to solve this issue of the RFD process in the big-8
>taking so long that an alt group can be created, propagated, and
>successful before the big-8 group gets off the ground.
>>Nevertheless, I consider google.public.support.general to be a Usenet
>>group because it's created on Giganews and a couple dozen other servers.
>>I absolutely would not consider it a Usenet group if it existed only on
>>Google Groups. At the moment, it's not even a Web forum on Google Groups
>>since there's no posting. That Google abruptly stopped exchanging a feed
>>four months ago and shut off posting and is generally not cooperating
>>doesn't change its status as a Usenet group on genuine News servers.
>>Have you looked at the group? It's actually active despite Google.
>I don't consider it to be a Usenet group simply because it's offered by
>Giganews.
I just pointed out that it isn't simply offered by Giganews. It's on a
couple of dozen News servers. That's why it's Usenet.
>If that were the criteria for a group, news.groups.ai.shells
>and a few thousand other bogus groups that Giganews carries would have
>to be considered legitimate.
Last I looked, Big 8 hierarchies are managed, so that's nonsense.
>Google.public.support.general does not fulfill the need for a newsgroup
>in which to discuss Google.
How do you know as you refuse to look at it? It's filled with on topic
discussion.
>It's not appropriate to promote it as a generally-available Usenet group;
>people will assume that it and the web forum accessible at Google are the
>same, and they never will be unless Google re-reverses their decision to
>feed it to Usenet.
Tomi Hasa has pointed out that posting is suspended. I have confirmed that.
Again, as we both agreed in precursor messages, Google has made itself
irrelevant. Why reverse your own position?
>I'd rather see Giganews pull it from their active file
What part of "it's an active Usenet newsgroup" is unclear to you? That's
generally BAD policy.
David Saur
> saur's proposal was made several weeks after the alt group was
> newgrouped. He didn't check.
I knew about alt.comp.google when I posted the proposal in news.groups. You
were too busy to comment on it in news.groups.
> Kindly state that you understand the order and withdraw your false
> allegation that the alt newgroup was sent after saur made his propoposal.
See Message-Id: <20070621034648.0f4...@lavabit.com>
for the correct order (the same person who sent the control message for
alt.comp.google was proposing a Big-8 group before I did).
Adam H. Kerman
Tomi Hasa has been more active promoting removal of
google.public.support.general than he has in promoting creation of
alt.comp.google.
Adam H. Kerman
That was dated June 21. The newgroup for alt.comp.google was sent June 16.
What part of the actual order of events isn't clear?
Tim Skirvin
>> Analyzing all discussion about a *.google.* group in news.groups.proposals
>> since this was first discussed in June, however, shows the following numbers:
[...]
With the discussion dead for weeks, the numbers as I counted 'em:
In Favor, Will Read/Post 6
In Favor 3
Unknown/Vaguely Positive 7
Unknown/Vaguely Negative 4
Unknown 2
Opposed 3
I still think it's a good idea, but I'm going to take a different
tack for now.