For a long time I've used Deja News (which later became Google Groups) to search the Usenet archives and I've never felt the need to consider an alternative ... until today.
Have you folks tried the new Google Groups recently? Lotsa new flashy graphics, colors, stupid star icons (a la Ebay), larger fonts and create-your-own-braindead-groups (a la Yahoo! groups). It seems that as internet companies evolve, they inevitably dumb things down to the lowest denominator. A similar thing seems to have happened with the latest My Yahoo! format.
However, the thing that irks me the most is that they are blocking the poster's email addresses - you need to register to be able to reply to the author - which of course opens the door for Google to ask and require all sorts of things for this "privilege". Now, I understand that spammers who harvest email addresses from Usenet are a real problem (but it is not as if posters are powerless to disguise or encode their addresses - and besides spammers probably scan posts in real time and have much less desire for the old addresses in newsgroup archives). However, many times I have been very grateful to be able to locate a legacy poster - be it to find an old friend, ask how the problem was eventually resolved, or to share information that may still be of interest despite the passing of time. Now, this appears to be off limits to me on an anonymous (cookies and IP addresses aside) basis.
Google's decision seems to run contrary to the public spirit of Usenet itself - I feel as though I am cut off from the original poster by a third party even though the poster may wish to be publicly known.
There are of course ways in which a poster can get around address blocking through the use of a clever sig. But, what about all those posts of the past? We can't go back and add encoded "you can contact me here" headers/sigs to them. Granted, email addresses change, but you can usually find a poster's current address from their more recent posts.
You see, if Google ever "went nuts" with regard to access to their web search engine, I could still survive - AltaVista, Lycos, Yahoo!, etc. are quite usable as alternatives to Google's web search. But, what of Usenet searches? In that regard, Google seems to have everyone by the balls. And I'm afraid they know it.
Are there any existing viable alternatives to Google Groups' Usenet archive search engine - even ones available on a paid basis?
Michael Shell wrote: > Greetings fellow Usenetters,
> For a long time I've used Deja News (which later became Google Groups) > to search the Usenet archives and I've never felt the need to consider > an alternative ... until today.
> Have you folks tried the new Google Groups recently? Lotsa new flashy > graphics, colors, stupid star icons (a la Ebay), larger fonts and > create-your-own-braindead-groups (a la Yahoo! groups). It seems that as > internet companies evolve, they inevitably dumb things down to the > lowest denominator. A similar thing seems to have happened with the > latest My Yahoo! format.
> However, the thing that irks me the most is that they are blocking > the poster's email addresses - you need to register to be able to > reply to the author - which of course opens the door for Google to > ask and require all sorts of things for this "privilege". Now, I > understand that spammers who harvest email addresses from Usenet > are a real problem (but it is not as if posters are powerless to > disguise or encode their addresses - and besides spammers probably > scan posts in real time and have much less desire for the old addresses > in newsgroup archives). However, many times I have been very grateful > to be able to locate a legacy poster - be it to find an old friend, > ask how the problem was eventually resolved, or to share information > that may still be of interest despite the passing of time. Now, this > appears to be off limits to me on an anonymous (cookies and IP > addresses aside) basis.
> Google's decision seems to run contrary to the public spirit of Usenet > itself - I feel as though I am cut off from the original poster by > a third party even though the poster may wish to be publicly known.
> There are of course ways in which a poster can get around address > blocking through the use of a clever sig. But, what about all those > posts of the past? We can't go back and add encoded "you can contact > me here" headers/sigs to them. Granted, email addresses change, but > you can usually find a poster's current address from their more > recent posts.
> You see, if Google ever "went nuts" with regard to access to their > web search engine, I could still survive - AltaVista, Lycos, Yahoo!, > etc. are quite usable as alternatives to Google's web search. But, > what of Usenet searches? In that regard, Google seems to have everyone > by the balls. And I'm afraid they know it.
> Are there any existing viable alternatives to Google Groups' Usenet > archive search engine - even ones available on a paid basis?
> For a long time I've used Deja News (which later became Google Groups) > to search the Usenet archives and I've never felt the need to consider > an alternative ... until today.
<SNIP>
Is it feasable to obtain local archives of some newsgroups. In my own research I often use the same groups over and over. Having my own - searchable - local archive might be useful.
Is such a thing a) possible? b) legal?
How much storage space might one need for such an undertaking. Obviously mirroring all of usenet is impossible for anyone - but maybe keeping local archives of one or two favourite groups might be useful. The sort of newsgroups I use regularly have a total number of posts over all years around 20,000 - 100,000 posts. Assuming an average of 10K per post (is this reasonable) The larger groups would take up a gigabyte or so. Put these on DVD and add some searching software and it would be a useful tool.
It seems to me that if Google is the SOLE controller of all of this public domain information then it can only be a bad thing.
> For a long time I've used Deja News (which later became Google Groups) > to search the Usenet archives and I've never felt the need to consider > an alternative ... until today.
Indeed, if you search usenet for the term "google groups" for the last couple of days you will see a lot of people reacting to the new groups - almost all of them negatively! At least beta seems off for a while now.
The 'normal' interface is clean, easy to follow and makes navigating threads, searching for old posts (by people, groups, subject or date) very easy. The new 'beta' manages to ruin everything good about google groups!
I fear someone did some 'market research' and came to the evidently wrong conlusions about 'what users want' (the evidence being the reaction to the beta)
the shame is that Google's "unique selling point" is that it works well, is fast and has a clean interface. if it becomes another advert infested, messy looking marketing exercise it'll, ironically, turn people away. You may aswell Yahoo or MSN if Google joins their ranks instead of standing cleanly apart from them.
> Have you folks tried the new Google Groups recently? Lotsa new flashy > graphics, colors, stupid star icons (a la Ebay), larger fonts and > create-your-own-braindead-groups (a la Yahoo! groups). It seems that as > internet companies evolve, they inevitably dumb things down to the > lowest denominator. A similar thing seems to have happened with the > latest My Yahoo! format.
I don't mind google playing 'yahoo groups' as a seperate venture but don't like them being intermingled with real usenet groups, the strength of which has always been that they are *not* like yahoo groups.
> However, the thing that irks me the most is that they are blocking > the poster's email addresses - you need to register to be able to > reply to the author - which of course opens the door for Google to > ask and require all sorts of things for this "privilege". Now, I > understand that spammers who harvest email addresses from Usenet > are a real problem (but it is not as if posters are powerless to > disguise or encode their addresses - and besides spammers probably > scan posts in real time and have much less desire for the old addresses > in newsgroup archives). However, many times I have been very grateful > to be able to locate a legacy poster - be it to find an old friend, > ask how the problem was eventually resolved, or to share information > that may still be of interest despite the passing of time. Now, this > appears to be off limits to me on an anonymous (cookies and IP > addresses aside) basis.
Good points, the idea of protecting people by blocking emails is ineffective as far as usenet goes anyway - this 'feature' of beta is another messy crossover of their own yahoo-a-like groups and the seperate unconnected usenet.
> Google's decision seems to run contrary to the public spirit of Usenet > itself - I feel as though I am cut off from the original poster by > a third party even though the poster may wish to be publicly known.
i never mind google adding some adverts in order to pay for access to usenet, a little rent if you will, but turning the whole experience into a dumbed down marketing nonsense would just make it pointless using them.
> You see, if Google ever "went nuts" with regard to access to their > web search engine, I could still survive - AltaVista, Lycos, Yahoo!, > etc. are quite usable as alternatives to Google's web search. But, > what of Usenet searches? In that regard, Google seems to have everyone > by the balls. And I'm afraid they know it.
The irony is that their strength, their appeal to their market has always been their straight-up competence and clean interface. they'd shoot themselves in the foot if they diluted themselves to yet another MSN/Yahoo clone.
> Are there any existing viable alternatives to Google Groups' Usenet > archive search engine - even ones available on a paid basis?
i may have to join the search...
hope not though. Google may come to their senses and play to their much admired strengths after all!
Michael Shell wrote: > Greetings fellow Usenetters,
> For a long time I've used Deja News (which later became Google Groups) > to search the Usenet archives and I've never felt the need to consider > an alternative ... until today.
<SNIP>
I agree.
The Google web portal is tuned to allow you to just get the best data as fast as possible. The new Google groups is the antethesis of this design philosophy.
The old Deja-News systems was a little convoluted, but not nearly as hosed up as the new google system is. The old google groups was good from an interface standpoint, but I think they truncated a huge part of the Deja-News spool somewhere along the way. Either that, or the search facilities against the spool were never effectively developed.
Sufficed to say. If Google is going to abandon usenet, then abandon usenet. Don't do this half-assed Yahoo/usenet merger thing. It makes for the worst of both and the best of neither.
> What it does do is to > take us one step down the road where we can only post and email > through Google rather than the existing emails and newsgroup systems.
> For a long time I've used Deja News (which later became Google Groups) > to search the Usenet archives and I've never felt the need to consider > an alternative ... until today.
> Have you folks tried the new Google Groups recently? Lotsa new flashy > graphics, colors, stupid star icons (a la Ebay), larger fonts and > create-your-own-braindead-groups (a la Yahoo! groups). It seems that > as internet companies evolve, they inevitably dumb things down to the > lowest denominator. A similar thing seems to have happened with the > latest My Yahoo! format.
> However, the thing that irks me the most is that they are blocking > the poster's email addresses - you need to register to be able to > reply to the author - which of course opens the door for Google to > ask and require all sorts of things for this "privilege". Now, I > understand that spammers who harvest email addresses from Usenet > are a real problem (but it is not as if posters are powerless to > disguise or encode their addresses - and besides spammers probably > scan posts in real time and have much less desire for the old > addresses in newsgroup archives). However, many times I have been very > grateful to be able to locate a legacy poster - be it to find an old > friend, ask how the problem was eventually resolved, or to share > information that may still be of interest despite the passing of time. > Now, this appears to be off limits to me on an anonymous (cookies and > IP addresses aside) basis.
> Google's decision seems to run contrary to the public spirit of Usenet > itself - I feel as though I am cut off from the original poster by > a third party even though the poster may wish to be publicly known.
> There are of course ways in which a poster can get around address > blocking through the use of a clever sig. But, what about all those > posts of the past? We can't go back and add encoded "you can contact > me here" headers/sigs to them. Granted, email addresses change, but > you can usually find a poster's current address from their more > recent posts.
> You see, if Google ever "went nuts" with regard to access to their > web search engine, I could still survive - AltaVista, Lycos, Yahoo!, > etc. are quite usable as alternatives to Google's web search. But, > what of Usenet searches? In that regard, Google seems to have everyone > by the balls. And I'm afraid they know it.
> Are there any existing viable alternatives to Google Groups' Usenet > archive search engine - even ones available on a paid basis?
utefan...@gmail.com wrote: >I am very unhappy w/ the new format as well. But protected email >addresses is good I think.
No. It isn't good. It doesn't protect you from spammers - they had access to your post when you posted it. What it does do is to take us one step down the road where we can only post and email through Google rather than the existing emails and newsgroup systems. Once they have a monopoly, they can start charging fot the service.
Guy Macon wrote: > ...What it does do is to take us one step down the road where we can > only post and email through Google rather than the existing emails > and newsgroup systems. Once they have a monopoly, they can start > charging fot the service.
On 2004-12-02, mike <mike_uk31...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Is it feasable to obtain local archives of some newsgroups. In my own > research I often use the same groups over and over. Having my own - > searchable - local archive might be useful.
> Is such a thing > a) possible? > b) legal?
> How much storage space might one need for such an undertaking. > Obviously mirroring all of usenet is impossible for anyone
Usenet is not that large (once you exclude the binaries) compared to modern storage systems. A couple of terabytes would be enough for five or six years, or double that if compressed. The hard part is actually indexing it all in ways that actually make the data useful.
On 2 Dec 2004 09:59:59 -0800, mike_uk31...@yahoo.co.uk (mike) wrote:
>> For a long time I've used Deja News (which later became Google Groups) >> to search the Usenet archives and I've never felt the need to consider >> an alternative ... until today.
><SNIP>
>Is it feasable to obtain local archives of some newsgroups. In my own >research I often use the same groups over and over. Having my own - >searchable - local archive might be useful.
>Is such a thing >a) possible?
Easy.
>b) legal?
Of course.
>How much storage space might one need for such an undertaking. >Obviously mirroring all of usenet is impossible for anyone - but maybe >keeping local archives of one or two favourite groups might be useful. > The sort of newsgroups I use regularly have a total number of posts >over all years around 20,000 - 100,000 posts. Assuming an average of >10K per post (is this reasonable) The larger groups would take up a >gigabyte or so. Put these on DVD and add some searching software and >it would be a useful tool.
>It seems to me that if Google is the SOLE controller of all of this >public domain information then it can only be a bad thing.
Quite a few people keep permanent archives of their favorite groups, and some have been doing so for years. All you need to do is get any good newsreader (such as Agent) and set the Purge times for messages with bodies to "Never". Job done.
-- Don Aitken
Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
> > For a long time I've used Deja News (which later became Google Groups) > > to search the Usenet archives and I've never felt the need to consider > > an alternative ... until today.
> Indeed, if you search usenet for the term "google groups" for the last > couple of days you will see a lot of people reacting to the new groups > - almost all of them negatively! At least beta seems off for a while > now.
> The 'normal' interface is clean, easy to follow and makes navigating > threads, searching for old posts (by people, groups, subject or date) > very easy. The new 'beta' manages to ruin everything good about > google groups!
> I fear someone did some 'market research' and came to the evidently > wrong conlusions about 'what users want' (the evidence being the > reaction to the beta)
> the shame is that Google's "unique selling point" is that it works > well, is fast and has a clean interface. if it becomes another advert > infested, messy looking marketing exercise it'll, ironically, turn > people away. You may aswell Yahoo or MSN if Google joins their ranks > instead of standing cleanly apart from them.
> > Have you folks tried the new Google Groups recently? Lotsa new flashy > > graphics, colors, stupid star icons (a la Ebay), larger fonts and > > create-your-own-braindead-groups (a la Yahoo! groups). It seems that as > > internet companies evolve, they inevitably dumb things down to the > > lowest denominator. A similar thing seems to have happened with the > > latest My Yahoo! format.
> I don't mind google playing 'yahoo groups' as a seperate venture but > don't like them being intermingled with real usenet groups, the > strength of which has always been that they are *not* like yahoo > groups.
> > However, the thing that irks me the most is that they are blocking > > the poster's email addresses - you need to register to be able to > > reply to the author - which of course opens the door for Google to > > ask and require all sorts of things for this "privilege". Now, I > > understand that spammers who harvest email addresses from Usenet > > are a real problem (but it is not as if posters are powerless to > > disguise or encode their addresses - and besides spammers probably > > scan posts in real time and have much less desire for the old addresses > > in newsgroup archives). However, many times I have been very grateful > > to be able to locate a legacy poster - be it to find an old friend, > > ask how the problem was eventually resolved, or to share information > > that may still be of interest despite the passing of time. Now, this > > appears to be off limits to me on an anonymous (cookies and IP > > addresses aside) basis.
> Good points, the idea of protecting people by blocking emails is > ineffective as far as usenet goes anyway - this 'feature' of beta is > another messy crossover of their own yahoo-a-like groups and the > seperate unconnected usenet.
> > Google's decision seems to run contrary to the public spirit of Usenet > > itself - I feel as though I am cut off from the original poster by > > a third party even though the poster may wish to be publicly known.
> i never mind google adding some adverts in order to pay for access to > usenet, a little rent if you will, but turning the whole experience > into a dumbed down marketing nonsense would just make it pointless > using them.
> > You see, if Google ever "went nuts" with regard to access to their > > web search engine, I could still survive - AltaVista, Lycos, Yahoo!, > > etc. are quite usable as alternatives to Google's web search. But, > > what of Usenet searches? In that regard, Google seems to have everyone > > by the balls. And I'm afraid they know it.
> The irony is that their strength, their appeal to their market has > always been their straight-up competence and clean interface. they'd > shoot themselves in the foot if they diluted themselves to yet another > MSN/Yahoo clone.
> > Are there any existing viable alternatives to Google Groups' Usenet > > archive search engine - even ones available on a paid basis?
> i may have to join the search...
> hope not though. Google may come to their senses and play to their > much admired strengths after all!
I would be surprised if they came to their senses. They are quite determined to do many stupid things and are completely impervious to reason and common sense.
I also am a Usenet user from before there was any WWW or graphics.
Amen to most of the above. I post to sci.math and sci.physics.research mostly which have developed ASCII (TeX-like) notation which google can't write programs for, so by trying to add color, fonts, clickable quotes, etc., they just make an absurd scrobled mess of it all. I have written and begged and reasoned with them, all to no avail. I have had to leave google and use another server and a newsreader, which is fine for usenet, but its not as convenient.
Those who post to those groups from google using groups 2 will know what I'm talking about, and now that the old ASCII version is being phased out for this nonsense.
Soon we will have graphic smilies instead of <g> and :-).
google could be a valuable resource if they wouldn't insist on being so stupid.
>You see, if Google ever "went nuts" with regard >to access to their web search engine, I could >still survive - AltaVista, Lycos, Yahoo!, >etc. are quite usable as alternatives to Google's >web search. But, what of Usenet searches? In >that regard, Google seems to have everyone >by the balls. And I'm afraid they know it.
You may be right on that.
>Are there any existing viable alternatives to >Google Groups' Usenet archive search engine - >even ones available on a paid basis?
Only one that I know of. usenet-replayer.com. I haven't completely explored it, but it's one place to start.
Henrietta K. Thomas Chicago, Illinois h...@xnet.com __ Learn about the us.* hierarchy. Visit our website @ www.usenetnews.us
In news.groups article <8ccca585.0412020959.1ecdd...@posting.google.com> mike <mike_uk31...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
: It seems to me that if Google is the SOLE controller of all of this : public domain information then it can only be a bad thing.
It is not public doamin. It is publicly accessible.
(c) 2004. Copyright, John M. Price, PhD. All Rights Reserved. Contents may not be republished in any form or medium without prior written consent of the author with the express and only exception of followup postings limited to and within usenet. -- John M. Price, PhD jmpr...@calweb.com Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
Nothing illustrates the social kinship of America and the late, great Roman Empire better than the all-you-can-eat buffet. The Romans called their buffet an orgy and threw in sex and a vomit trough. Hopefully we too will reach this pinnacle someday. - Greg Beets & Buzz Moran 'Hey! Hey! Buffet!'
In news.groups article <Xns95B3A9C53F9B3san...@216.168.3.44> who me <o...@ooo.com> wrote: : utefan...@gmail.com wrote in news:1101997375.621212.208890 : @c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
: > I am very unhappy w/ the new format as well. But protected email : > addresses is good I think.
: Protected email addreses don't mean that people are protected - remember, : their messages are still available on other USENET servives and software.
: All it means is inconvenience for researchers
True. Spammers aren't going to bother with web crawls for usenet stuff when they can just grep their local servers. They do the web crawls for those not on usenet.
(c) 2004. Copyright, John M. Price, PhD. All Rights Reserved. Contents may not be republished in any form or medium without prior written consent of the author with the express and only exception of followup postings limited to and within usenet. -- John M. Price, PhD jmpr...@calweb.com Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
Faith is the first step to stop looking for the truth. - Wade Smith on SKEPTIC, 8Jul99
mike_uk31...@yahoo.co.uk (mike) wrote in message <news:8ccca585.0412020959.1ecdd7ed@posting.google.com>... > > For a long time I've used Deja News (which later became Google Groups) > > to search the Usenet archives and I've never felt the need to consider > > an alternative ... until today.
> <SNIP>
> Is it feasable to obtain local archives of some newsgroups. In my own > research I often use the same groups over and over. Having my own - > searchable - local archive might be useful.
> Is such a thing > a) possible?
Yes, in fact I've seen it done before. Basically all you need is a usenet client application that will store your dowloaded messages as a single file and an encoding algorythm to covert it all to html.
I think you also get cool points for doing this. Including a single groups entire spool linked from your web page would probably get your web site some search relevance. Not sure about that thought.
> b) legal?
Absolutely. Nobody owns usenet. The very design of it is cooperative and distributed. Which is probably why it will ultimately die as direct user interfacing format. Its much more redundant in traffic loading than is a web based group systems. It can also be a major PITA from an administrative standpoint.
> How much storage space might one need for such an undertaking.
One high traffic text only group might take a Gig or so, and thats probably generous. Compressed even less. Not that much data by modern standards.
The "groups.foo.com" domain practice is already fairly standardized. It might be appropriate to just migrate the whole bloody thing by making the groups a DNS naming convention. Just reverse the heirarchies.
I'm sure smarter folks than me have thought about this. It would probably get a lot of push back initially. People want usenet to be "free", but generally don't take into account the guy running the local server. (The one your connecting to right now)
It's his box after all, and he can do whatever he wants to his box. The fact that there isn't a lot of moderation (Pun intended) on usenet is more of a pragmatic issue than an idealistic one. Opinions are just not important enough to spend all day filtering.
Sufficed to say that wouldn't change if the whole thing was migrated to the web and "usenet" as a systems architecture ceased to exist.
> Obviously mirroring all of usenet is impossible for anyone - but maybe > keeping local archives of one or two favourite groups might be useful. > The sort of newsgroups I use regularly have a total number of posts > over all years around 20,000 - 100,000 posts. Assuming an average of > 10K per post (is this reasonable) The larger groups would take up a > gigabyte or so. Put these on DVD and add some searching software and > it would be a useful tool.
> It seems to me that if Google is the SOLE controller of all of this > public domain information then it can only be a bad thing.
> Any thoughts? > Mike
Google isn't the sole controller. Like I said the whole system is distributed. So google may be the only one running a free searchable index, and the only one storing messages indefinately. But the data as it is posted is aviable and transported across many many hosts. Or at least that is how it used to be. (Haven't messed with NNTP in many years.)
The issue is the search engine. Storing the data is easy. Storing in a way that is searchable is whole other potatoe. Or is that patahtoe...
Glad to see I'm not the only one disgusted with the new and "improved" Google Groups. The usefulness of Google Groups has been severely impaired by their latest changes. Most noteably, we have lost the ability to browse through a directory of groups (you must know what you are looking for) and intuitive hyperlinks have given way to plain html which further impairs navigation. The graphics are annoying, but I resent most the physical changes that have made it less usable, such as the threads now being shown "flat" without the useful hierachical structure of the original messages. I sent an email to Google Groups support when they first implemented the changes. I suggest everyone who is disatisfied do the same.
Your point about the addresses is valid. Most of us know to use an anonymous free account if we are concerned about spam, and then let the filters handle the rest. We are already separated by a level of anonymity through the use of aliases. I would much rather see IP masking (click on "show original" and it displays all of the original headers). The email might be of use to spammers, but the IP can be far more damaging in the wrong hands. The IP can be used to gain information about the sender, as well as for hacking. We have all no doubt seen people being stalked at one time or another online. There are always proxies, but it would be nice if google simply masked the last octet.
Michael Shell wrote: > Greetings fellow Usenetters,
> For a long time I've used Deja News (which later became Google Groups) > to search the Usenet archives and I've never felt the need to consider > an alternative ... until today.
> Have you folks tried the new Google Groups recently? Lotsa new flashy > graphics, colors, stupid star icons (a la Ebay), larger fonts and > create-your-own-braindead-groups (a la Yahoo! groups). It seems that as > internet companies evolve, they inevitably dumb things down to the > lowest denominator. A similar thing seems to have happened with the > latest My Yahoo! format.
It is dreadful. Horrible. I cant believe they would do this to the old google groups.
> However, the thing that irks me the most is that they are blocking > the poster's email addresses - you need to register to be able to > reply to the author - which of course opens the door for Google to > ask and require all sorts of things for this "privilege". Now, I > understand that spammers who harvest email addresses from Usenet > are a real problem (but it is not as if posters are powerless to > disguise or encode their addresses - and besides spammers probably > scan posts in real time and have much less desire for the old addresses > in newsgroup archives). However, many times I have been very grateful > to be able to locate a legacy poster - be it to find an old friend, > ask how the problem was eventually resolved, or to share information > that may still be of interest despite the passing of time. Now, this > appears to be off limits to me on an anonymous (cookies and IP > addresses aside) basis.
> Google's decision seems to run contrary to the public spirit of Usenet > itself - I feel as though I am cut off from the original poster by > a third party even though the poster may wish to be publicly known.
> There are of course ways in which a poster can get around address > blocking through the use of a clever sig. But, what about all those > posts of the past? We can't go back and add encoded "you can contact > me here" headers/sigs to them. Granted, email addresses change, but > you can usually find a poster's current address from their more > recent posts.
> You see, if Google ever "went nuts" with regard to access to their > web search engine, I could still survive - AltaVista, Lycos, Yahoo!, > etc. are quite usable as alternatives to Google's web search. But, > what of Usenet searches? In that regard, Google seems to have everyone > by the balls. And I'm afraid they know it.
> Are there any existing viable alternatives to Google Groups' Usenet > archive search engine - even ones available on a paid basis?
> Cheers,
> Michael Shell
It may be time to sell google stock. I learnt so much in the Newsgroups by reading old posts of people I deemed informed. You cant do that anymore.
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 02:11:44 -0500, Michael Shell <ne...@michaelshell.org> wrote "I hate the new Google Groups":
>For a long time I've used Deja News (which later became Google Groups) >to search the Usenet archives and I've never felt the need to consider >an alternative ... until today.
I couldn't agree more with the opinions I am reading here about the new Google Groups. I wrote an e-mail to Google Groups this morning from the "contact us" section of their website. While the e-mail address I sent my opinion to is for support and not feedback, I hope they will forward my e-mail to the appropriate department. Here is
what I wrote:
"I have been using Google Groups since back in the Dejanews days, roughly 8 years. I wanted to let you know how horrible I find the new design of Google Groups. It is the most un-user friendly design I have ever seen. Navigating through usenet searches is extremely awkward now. I normally adapt to changes quickly, but I do not feel I can do so with your new design. I did a search on Google Groups to see other reactions to the new design and I found my opinion is shared by other people. I hope your company will realize how good the original design was. Although I am in the United States, I was pleased to find I can still use the design I am used to in the UK version of Google Groups. I hope you will at least leave the UK version alone."
