OT: Google no longer archiving posts?
Mr. Hole the Magnificent
Taylor
Nooooooooooo! I NEED David's words of wisdom to fallback on and cite
when necessary. :-(
RIP, GoogleGroups archives. You were a good friend.
David
<Classic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Seems it all stops at the end of May.
Really?
Well I assume people have been saving my posts anyway.
Nancy2
Happy dance. When they took over the newsgroups, it became
outrageously difficult to remove posts. This is better.
N.
Taylor
> On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 05:23:03 -0700 (PDT), "Mr. Hole the Magnificent"
>
> >Seems it all stops at the end of May.
>
> Really?
>
> Well I assume people have been saving my posts anyway.
"Why, I'm your number one fan. Your number one fan."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_groups
Either GG is having a hiccup, or somebody needs to update the
Wikipedia entry.
Patty Winter
In article <eccq25tqnosebm1q1...@4ax.com>,
David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 05:23:03 -0700 (PDT), "Mr. Hole the Magnificent"
><Classic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Seems it all stops at the end of May.
>
>Really?
What is "Hole" talking about? There are postings up to a few minutes
ago on http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv. Or does he mean
something else by "it all stops at the end of May"?
Of course, specific posters can choose not to have their messages
archived, but that only affects their own postings.
Patty
Michael Black
They never took over the newsgroups.
Google, and dejanews before it, was a useful tool, an archive
of useful posts, or even a chance to find that post you made
a decade before.
What needs killing is the ability for people to post from
google, so they won't be able to blunder in.
If the archive is gone, and I don't believe that, it is
a loss.
What has happened is that the search engine seems to be
messed up. it's harder to find things, no doubt made
worse as they toss in all kinds of unwanted junk.
There have been times in the past when they have glitched
and the updates haven't happened, and yes for as much
as two weeks. That doesn't mean they aren't archiving, it
means the newer messages don't display, until the fix is
in.
Until google makes an announcement, it's only wishful
thinking that they are dead.
Michael
David Johnston
Um...they didn't, you know.
Anim8rFSK
Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
I went looking for posts from Jason and Jayembee for that 'whatever
happened to' thread, and only came up with a handful. I think I only
got like 5 for Inkslinger.
--
MEGA-SHARK VS GIANT OCTOPUS!
A new contender for "worst film of all time"
Deborah Gibson is like a Traci Lords without talent.
Adam H. Kerman
>>>Seems it all stops at the end of May.
>>Really?
>What is "Hole" talking about? There are postings up to a few minutes
>ago on http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv. Or does he mean
>something else by "it all stops at the end of May"?
>Of course, specific posters can choose not to have their messages
>archived, but that only affects their own postings.
Those choosing not to have their posts archived are merely kidding
themselves. Every message is saved. They are unavailable through the
indexes, which is what Google Groups is actually searching. No one is
prevented from archiving a message on another system.
You post to a public network, assume the message will be available and
archived.
Michael Black
> In article <4a2d4013$0$1598$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <eccq25tqnosebm1q1...@4ax.com>,
>> David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 05:23:03 -0700 (PDT), "Mr. Hole the Magnificent"
>>> <Classic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Seems it all stops at the end of May.
>>>
>>> Really?
>>
>>
>> What is "Hole" talking about? There are postings up to a few minutes
>> ago on http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv. Or does he mean
>> something else by "it all stops at the end of May"?
>>
>> Of course, specific posters can choose not to have their messages
>> archived, but that only affects their own postings.
>>
>>
>> Patty
>
> I went looking for posts from Jason and Jayembee for that 'whatever
> happened to' thread, and only came up with a handful. I think I only
> got like 5 for Inkslinger.
>
But that's been the case for a while. I'm not convinced it's a messed
up archive, but their search engine has gone bad. IN recent months I
have looked for things that I've found before, and they don't appear.
Michael
Mr. Hole the Magnificent
> In article <eccq25tqnosebm1q1nfup6sur7kmkgr...@4ax.com>,
>
> David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 05:23:03 -0700 (PDT), "Mr. Hole the Magnificent"
> ><Classic.Mr.H...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>Seems it all stops at the end of May.
>
> >Really?
>
> What is "Hole" talking about? There are postings up to a few minutes
> something else by "it all stops at the end of May"?
>
> Of course, specific posters can choose not to have their messages
> archived, but that only affects their own postings.
If you click on view profile it looks like everyone just stopped
posting on May 28, and if you scroll down to that little calendar and
click on the June 2009 posts you get nada.
Michael Black
But how do you know it's not a glitch in the software that does the
previews and such?
My experience is that there have been glitches along those lines
before, it has nothing to do with them not archiving messages.
Michael
Google Down
It's not the archive that's missing. It's the ability to search it
on the "Google Groups" search engine. "Google censorship" gone wild.
Or Government censorship. Same thing? That's what it looks like.
If you have saved any old posts from anyone, try accessing the article
directly by its message id only, http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=
followed by the message id. Comes up most of the time. That proves the
article in question is still there, resident in the "Google" archives.
Why would Google save all of the articles and yet make it impossible to
search for them in most, if not all, cases? Been going on for years.
Now try searching on "Google Groups" for a singular string of text
contained in the same message. Hasn't worked in most cases since about
December of 2004. If it comes up, you're lucky. Most times it won't.
Same thing for "subject." Search message subject string, "not found."
And the Google "web" search isn't much better these days. Fact is
"Google" bought the farm years ago. It's just that no one bothered to
write the "Google" obituary notice. No matter, cause dead is dead.
Perhaps that is why "Google" is rated so high in the stock market,
because dead for the little fish means lively profits for the big fish.
Hate to say it, but that's exactly what it looks like. What other
explanation could explain it? "Google" sold out to the highest bidder.
And these days that would have to be the Government. The big "G."
"G" as in Gone. Gutted like a fish.
--
Mr. Hole the Magnificent
That's why there's a question mark.
Tony Calguire
it means they're not archiving, but their tools for accessing that archive
are abysmal.
My favorite Google Groups bug:
A sample of search results sorted by relevance: about 8,600
The same search results, sorted by date: about 328
David
A few times I've needed to find an old ratings post. Searching for
"Monday 6/8/09 ratings" for example didn't come up with anything but
doing an advanced search for "ratings" on the dates 6/9/09-6/9/09
would come up with a post with that exact header. Searching for
anything else usually got no results since now it must be necessary to
know the exact date something was posted.
Hunter
pat...@wintertime.com says...
I have the exact same problem as "Hole" does. It only goes up to May
29. You can find the newer post if you actually go into the newsgroup
itself through Google, but if you do a Google search of ALL
newsgroups for the most recent ones that have your screen nym, then
you can't find anymore, even if you know for a fact that you posted
dozens of times since May 29. For instance this post made on June 9
would not be seen unless I actually go into rec.art.tv through
Google. Using an independent newsreader is fine however.
Google is still archiving post but it is much harder to find for some
strange reason. I noticed this happening about a year or so ago.
--
----->Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
ib...@san.rr.com
> In article <4a2d4013$0$1598$742ec...@news.sonic.net>,
> pat...@wintertime.com says...
>
>
>
> > In article <eccq25tqnosebm1q1nfup6sur7kmkgr...@4ax.com>,
> > David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 05:23:03 -0700 (PDT), "Mr. Hole the Magnificent"
> > ><Classic.Mr.H...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>Seems it all stops at the end of May.
>
> > >Really?
>
> > What is "Hole" talking about? There are postings up to a few minutes
> > something else by "it all stops at the end of May"?
>
> > Of course, specific posters can choose not to have their messages
> > archived, but that only affects their own postings.
>
> > Patty
>
> ---
> I have the exact same problem as "Hole" does. It only goes up to May
> 29. You can find the newer post if you actually go into the newsgroup
> itself through Google, but if you do a Google search of ALL
> newsgroups for the most recent ones that have your screen nym, then
> you can't find anymore, even if you know for a fact that you posted
> dozens of times since May 29. For instance this post made on June 9
> would not be seen unless I actually go into rec.art.tv through
> Google. Using an independent newsreader is fine however.
>
> Google is still archiving post but it is much harder to find for some
> strange reason. I noticed this happening about a year or so ago.
Yep - my Profile still counts the number of posts I've made in June,
but won't let me access them, and the posts displayed in the regular
profile list end on about May 28-29.
Google has gotten worse and worse - let's face it: these days, it's
*shite*!!
Ian (Another issue - when you bring about the "About a Group" page,
it no longer lists the Group activity by Month, like it did not so
long ago... :( )
Taylor
Ditto for me for searching keywords to find an old post.
Patty Winter
In article <MPG.2498195f9...@news.optonline.net>,
Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <4a2d4013$0$1598$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>pat...@wintertime.com says...
>>
>> ago on http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv. Or does he mean
>> something else by "it all stops at the end of May"?
>>
>I have the exact same problem as "Hole" does. It only goes up to May
>29. You can find the newer post if you actually go into the newsgroup
>itself through Google, but if you do a Google search of ALL
>newsgroups for the most recent ones that have your screen nym, then
>you can't find anymore, even if you know for a fact that you posted
>dozens of times since May 29.
I don't know about the search function; perhaps it is having problems.
He said that Google Groups had stopped archiving posts at the end of
May, which isn't accurate.
Patty
SFTV_troy
>
> > A few times I've needed to find an old ratings post. Searching for
> > "Monday 6/8/09 ratings" for example didn't come up with anything but
> > doing an advanced search for "ratings" on the dates 6/9/09-6/9/09
> > would come up with a post with that exact header.
Whatever the problem is, it appears to be affecting recent posts not
older archived posts. I'm still finding my own posts from the late
80s and 90s.
David
>Ian (Another issue - when you bring about the "About a Group" page,
>it no longer lists the Group activity by Month, like it did not so
>long ago... :( )
It does, but you may need to refresh the page a few times. Actually
that may be true for other problems as well.
Default User
> I don't know about the search function; perhaps it is having
> problems. He said that Google Groups had stopped archiving posts at
> the end of May, which isn't accurate.
Search has been badly broken for a long time.
Brian
--
Day 127 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
Default User
I've tested it with copying a phrase from a GG post and searching, and
having it fail to find any matches. This has been going on quite some
ib...@san.rr.com
<Classic.Mr.H...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 8, 9:30 pm, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Mr. Hole the Magnificent wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 8, 9:45 am, Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
> > >> In article <eccq25tqnosebm1q1nfup6sur7kmkgr...@4ax.com>,
>
> > >> David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>> On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 05:23:03 -0700 (PDT), "Mr. Hole the Magnificent"
> > >>> <Classic.Mr.H...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>> Seems it all stops at the end of May.
>
> > >>> Really?
>
> > >> What is "Hole" talking about? There are postings up to a few minutes
> > >> ago onhttp://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv. Or does he mean
> > >> something else by "it all stops at the end of May"?
>
> > >> Of course, specific posters can choose not to have their messages
> > >> archived, but that only affects their own postings.
>
> > > If you click on view profile it looks like everyone just stopped
> > > posting on May 28, and if you scroll down to that little calendar and
> > > click on the June 2009 posts you get nada.
>
> > But how do you know it's not a glitch in the software that does the
> > previews and such?
>
> > My experience is that there have been glitches along those lines
> > before, it has nothing to do with them not archiving messages.
>
> That's why there's a question mark.
I thought it was there for aesthetic purposes.
Patrick McNamara
"SFTV_troy" <SFTV...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:64cd530f-6fb4-44e0...@n21g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
It could be a server issue they haven't addressed. The really old posts may
be on one server while the newer ones are on another.
--
Patrick McNamara
E-mail: patjmc...@gmail.com
Central Hub (Access to podcasts, blog and web stores):
http://writerpatrick.webs.com
My Toy Store: http://patrickjmcnamara.webs.com
Book Store: http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=139581
Barry Margolin
Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
An archive that can't be searched is not really much of an archive.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Patty Winter
In article <barmar-CF7D8F....@mara100-84.onlink.net>,
True, although it isn't hard to scroll through a week's worth
of postings. Of course, if the problem gets worse and the search
function fails to work for 10 days, then two weeks, etc., then
scrolling could become too unwieldy.
Patty
Taylor
As of 12:09AM (ET), I have 277 posts for June listed on my main
profile's calendar. I'll check back later and see if the number goes
up. Clicking on the number ("277") gives me no results. But clicking
on my May's number still does.
Taylor
Okay. The number goes up. But I _still_ can't view my posts from the
month of June. The end of archives????
Barry Margolin
Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
> In article <barmar-CF7D8F....@mara100-84.onlink.net>,
> Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >In article <4a2e6dc6$0$1598$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> > Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I don't know about the search function; perhaps it is having problems.
> >> He said that Google Groups had stopped archiving posts at the end of
> >> May, which isn't accurate.
> >
> >An archive that can't be searched is not really much of an archive.
>
> True, although it isn't hard to scroll through a week's worth
> of postings.
Usenet must have millions of posts a day in 10's of thousands of
threads. How can you realistically scroll through them? Did you mean
just scrolling through a single newsgroup? Sure, if you're just
interested in the last few days and you know what group something was in.
Patty Winter
In article <barmar-04E33D....@mara100-84.onlink.net>,
Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>In article <4a2f307c$0$1649$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
>
>> True, although it isn't hard to scroll through a week's worth
>> of postings.
>
>Usenet must have millions of posts a day in 10's of thousands of
>threads. How can you realistically scroll through them? Did you mean
>just scrolling through a single newsgroup?
Yes, I was talking about r.a.tv--or whatever other specific group
one is interested in. If you want to find a posting that you read
a few days ago and a search isn't finding it, you could just look
back through the past few days' postings on Google.
Of course, people who have real newsreaders can use the search
features in those to find recent postings, only using Google
for older messages that have expired off their news servers.
Patty
Hunter
nmas...@gmail.com says...
> Taylor <lukeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Either GG is having a hiccup, or somebody needs to update the
> > Wikipedia entry.
>
> Or Mr Hole is having a brain fart. Google has recent posts. Google has
> old posts (going back to at least 2001).
---
You can find the very first post on Usenet going back to 1981, at
least you used to. You can still find your post of old, but it is a
more convoluted way. You can't simply do a word search like say
"Buffy" "Faith" "May 1 2000-May 21 2000" and your screen sig anymore.
You have to do it in a round about complicated way. Don't know why.
Seamus MacRae
> And the Google "web" search isn't much better these days.
One way they could improve it is to add a "Report Link" link.
I envision something like this:
Results 1-10 of 768,334 for "whatsit"
Whatsits-R-Us
summary ... text ...
www.whatsitsrus.com/index.htm - Cached - Similar Pages - Report Link
Whatsits at Thingiesverse
summary ... text ...
www.thingiesverse.com/whatsits/ - Cached - Similar Pages - Report Link
...
Clicking "Report Link" then brings up something like:
Reason for Reporting Link
(*) Broken Link - gives error page or persistently won't load.
( ) Bait-and-Switch - link goes to a page that is clearly not the same
as the page the summary text came from, AND it is probably
intentional: "Cached" was missing and the page you got was an ad,
a login page, a credit card info form, or similarly.
( ) Changed - link goes to a page that is clearly not the same as the
page the summary text came from, BUT there is no reason to
think it's deliberate bait-and-switch.
( ) Irrelevant - link goes to the correct page, but it turns out not
to be anything to do with the search you did.
[Submit]
The first three of those would cause Google to attempt to retrieve the
page again.
In the first case, it would identify itself as Googlebot and see if it
got a permanent error (404), a temporary one (500, times out), or none.
If it got none it would do nothing. If it got a permanent error it would
drop the page from its search database. If it got a "temporary" one, it
would recheck it at widely-separated intervals (hours) over a few days
and if it stayed consistently down, drop the page.
In the second case, it would identify itself as IE running on a recent
Windows version, surf through a proxy or a nominally
non-Google-affiliated IP, and compare the page the site sent to an
apparently-human user with the version in its memory (from which the
summary text is generated). If they differed, it would return after a
day or two and check the page as Googlebot and compare THAT with what it
got as a "human". If those differed substantially, and especially if as
"googlebot" it got a page clearly relevant to the reporting user's
search query but as a "human" it got a page clearly NOT relevant, it
would drop the entire site (not just the page) from its index and
blacklist it for what the search engine companies call "cloaking", but
what users will more readily recognize under the name "bait-and-switch".
In the third case, it would identify itself as Googlebot and compare
against the stored version. If substantial differences were found, it
would update the stored version and the search indexes.
The last of these would not have any automatic effect except to log that
that particular result, with that particular query, was found by a user
at <IP> to be unuseful. If in a sliding window of time (maybe a few
weeks) the same link with similar queries was logged as unhelpful by
diverse IPs, it would be flagged for human review of the page and
queries. The human at Google would decide whether to artificially
deprecate that link for particular query terms or leave it be.
In all four cases, Google would present the form and accept it but take
no further action if the same IP address had recently reported the same
link (in cases other than bait-and-switch; any link at the same hostname
in case of bait-and-switch), to protect against a single user hammering
on "report link" triggering a flood of google-originating automated
traffic to the site in the first three cases and an artificial inflation
of the number of irrelevancy-log entries for a page in the fourth. This
policy would, in particular, prevent the abuse of Google's proposed new
feature to conduct a DoS attack on a site, as generating DoS levels of
traffic would require the attacker to submit URLs to Google from a huge
number of distinct IP addresses, and if they can do that, they have a
botnet and can directly DDoS the site anyway and cut out the middleman
so why would they use Google?
Stan Brown
<bar...@alum.mit.edu>:
> An archive that can't be searched is not really much of an archive.
I don't know. It keeps the bits from being worn off of the older
items. :-)
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
"You may be the Universe's butt puppet, but I'm its right-
hand fist of fate." -- /Wonderfalls/
Hunter
pat...@wintertime.com says...
To be fair to him he didn't say it as fact. He put it in a form of a
question in the subject line above. And someone noticing that their
post are no longer being retrievable or even seen despite continued
posting it is a legitimate question to raise.
Hunter
4c5223...@n21g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, SFTV...@yahoo.com
says...
I can too from the late 1990's when I first started posting on
USENET. It is a matter of convince. It is not as easy and straight
forward as it was.
Hunter
pat...@wintertime.com says...
Which is precisely what I do. It is just harder to find posting from
say five years ago of mind in various groups that it needs to be.
Michael Black
> Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:56:45 -0400 from Barry Margolin
> <bar...@alum.mit.edu>:
>
>> An archive that can't be searched is not really much of an archive.
>
> I don't know. It keeps the bits from being worn off of the older
> items. :-)
>
They probably see the cost in the searches, not in the hard drive
space needed to archive.
So they keep archiving it so they have more of a product to sell
to some other sucker/company when they see no viable means of making
profit from "google groups".
Michael