Nobody?
John Bokma
Adrienne Boswell
writing in news:Xns9CD0CB5CDB...@130.133.1.4:
> Looks dead here...
>
Not completely, I'm still here. It used to be a very active group, and it
seems to have "died" a little sooner than others. Sad really, I got a lot
of information from this group.
--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share
John Bokma
> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed John Bokma
> <jo...@castleamber.com> writing in
> news:Xns9CD0CB5CDB...@130.133.1.4:
>
>> Looks dead here...
>>
>
> Not completely, I'm still here. It used to be a very active group,
> and it seems to have "died" a little sooner than others. Sad really,
> I got a lot of information from this group.
Hi Adrienne,
Back on Usenet since last week [1], and I was expecting to see Bill and
some others here. I hope they are OK.
If you don't mind using a web based forum, please sign up to:
http://seo-expert-wiki.com/forum/
(others are welcome as well). It's also slow, but I might read there more
often than here, especially with this volume of posts :-D.
John
[1] mainly to follow comp.lang.python (and maybe comp.lang.perl.*)
Coffee's For Closers
jo...@castleamber.com says...
> Looks dead here...
It's dead, John.
There is nobody here.
"In space, nobody can hear you scream."
It's just pissing in the wind.
It's like seeking water from the moon (although maybe not, with
that recent mission.)
Gone. Barrain. The tumbleweeds go past, in the desolate desert
wind.
Buried under millennia of sand, to be unearthed by some
adventurous archeologist.
--
Earn Money With Your Web Site
http://www.WebSponsorZone.Net
Web Site Advertising Directory
www.1-script.com
John Bokma wrote:
> Looks dead here...
But not nearly as dead as some other great groups that were around in the
90s :) Is this the time frame you are comparing the level of activity to?
Usenet is really badly spam infested these days and for a newcomer without
killfiles already properly setup ANY group, even those with more activity,
would look like a spam attack in their Inbox. I think spam is a big
turn-off for anybody new to start following a particular group.
But for what little it's worth, I'm still checking it, too.
--
Cheers,
Dmitri
http://www.1-script.com/
John Bokma
> John Bokma wrote:
>
>> Looks dead here...
>
> But not nearly as dead as some other great groups that were around in
> the 90s :) Is this the time frame you are comparing the level of
> activity to?
Nah, I compare this group to about a year ago. Can't recall when I was
here the last time.
And I think that there are still more people posting on Usenet nowadays
compared to the early 90's, at least for the nl.* hierarchy this is the
case (at a quick glance). In the early 90's there where 3 nlnet groups
IIRC. Now there are 70+ times more :-) (223 according to Xnews) and the
ones I follow do have some activity.
> Usenet is really badly spam infested these days and for a
= Google infested. Yeah, the don't be evil has always been a joke.
> But for what little it's worth, I'm still checking it, too.
Don't check, post ;-)
Or join the watercooler & post there :-D
John
John Bokma
> In article <Xns9CD0CB5CDB...@130.133.1.4>,
> jo...@castleamber.com says...
>> Looks dead here...
>
>
> It's dead, John.
[..]
> Buried under millennia of sand, to be unearthed by some
> adventurous archeologist.
Heh, imagine someone actually reading Usenet postings 1000+ years from
now...
Jez
John Bokma wrote:
> Looks dead here...
It's a real shame. I still prefer usenet over everything else. I don't
know why really. Maybe it's the simplicity of it.
Maybe usenet won't die but I think that this group certainly will.
Google has pretty much killed off SEO, IMO. No one ever knows anything
new these days and it doesn't leave a lot to discuss.
I get into John Bokma's group when I can but to be honest I am so busy
(mostly due to what I learned about SEO back in the day) with my
business that I don't get the time. I still always take a glance in here
though - out of habit as much as anything.
Jez.
Brian Cryer
news:Xns9CD0CB5CDB...@130.133.1.4...
> Looks dead here...
Spammers are certainly nailing the coffin lid shut ... :(
I look in occasionally, and whilst the spam flood makes it difficult to see
any real posts there are still some.
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian
John Bokma
> Brian Cryer wrote:
>
>> Spammers are certainly nailing the coffin lid shut ... :(
>>
>> I look in occasionally, and whilst the spam flood makes it difficult to see
>> any real posts there are still some.
>
> I connect to newsgroups through news.individual.net. It's 10 dollars
> (or maybe 10 euros, I forget) a year and I rarely see any spam in this
> newsgroup nor in any of the others I follow. It's a bargain for that
> price.
I do the same, and it's 10 euros which is not much. I also don't see any
spam here, so far so good as I just figured out how to use scoring in
Gnus.
As for SEO things changing, I think that pick good title and headings
and just write good content (= king) works. Don't focus on things like
keyword frequency etc. but on content that's pleasant to read instead.
John
Brian Cryer
news:VA.0000399...@braser.com...
> Brian Cryer wrote:
>
>> Spammers are certainly nailing the coffin lid shut ... :(
>>
>> I look in occasionally, and whilst the spam flood makes it difficult to
>> see
>> any real posts there are still some.
>
> (or maybe 10 euros, I forget) a year and I rarely see any spam in this
> newsgroup nor in any of the others I follow. It's a bargain for that
> price.
Its certainly a poor reflection on my ISPs newsgroup service.
I've looked at news.individual.net but I don't like their rules -
specifically the one about using a valid sender address. It means (assuming
I were to stick to their rules) that I'd see hardly any spam in newsgroups
but risk get a significant rise in the amount that hit my inbox. I'm not
sure that's a good trade off.
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian
John Bokma
Create a gmail address. It's valid, and it's a way of saying thank you
to Google for their daily Usenet fuck up.
Or if you have your own domain and can configure postfix (or similar),
create an email address and reject each email via postfix. You have to
use a valid email address, but it doesn't have to be the same as the one
you use to register (at least I registered as postmaster[at] but when
someone told me it's not a good idea to use that on Usenet I changed it
back to john[at]).
Anyway, I recall that Individual has a FAQ entry regarding the valid
email address, but can't recall what's the answer. Maybe check it out as
well?
--
John Bokma
Read my blog: http://johnbokma.com/
Hire me (Perl/Python): http://castleamber.com/
John Bokma
[Individual.net email address]
> Or if you have your own domain and can configure postfix (or similar),
> create an email address and reject each email via postfix.
After reading the policy I am not sure if this is OK:
The e-mail addresses given in "From:", "Reply-To:", and "Sender:"
should be valid (= should not bounce because of invalidity).
A reject is not a bounce, but no idea how Individual reads their own
policy.
> Anyway, I recall that Individual has a FAQ entry regarding the valid
> email address, but can't recall what's the answer. Maybe check it out as
> well?
Couldn't find it...
So maybe the use a gmail address is the best advice?
Allodoxaphobia
> John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> writes:
>
> [Individual.net email address]
>
>> Or if you have your own domain and can configure postfix (or similar),
>> create an email address and reject each email via postfix.
>
> After reading the policy I am not sure if this is OK:
>
> The e-mail addresses given in "From:", "Reply-To:", and "Sender:"
> should be valid (= should not bounce because of invalidity).
>
> A reject is not a bounce, but no idea how Individual reads their own
> policy.
I've been using Individual.net since before they became Individual.net
-- they were 'Free University of Berlin . edu' or something like that.
From Day 1 I've been using the email addy above. It is a "valid" email
addy - per Individual.net's rules. It's just that my ISP NetAdmin and I
have assigned this email addy as a spam trap. Works Just Fine for that.
He gets the raw data he needs, and I get the 'quiet' I seek.
The email addy I use with my sign-up for Individual.net is something
totally different -- and that is the one they use to send me (VERY
infrequent notices) and renewal notices.
I concur that Individual.net does a Fine Job of culling out the spam in
their usenet feed. That and killfing google _original_ posts makes my
life on usenet much the way it was back in The Last Century. :-)
Jonesy
--
Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux
38.24N 104.55W | @ config.com | Jonesy | OS/2
* Killfiling google & XXXXbanter.com: jonz.net/ng.htm
Brian Cryer
news:slrnhhdq6t.2u...@shell.config.com...
Thank you John and Jonesy, I hadn't considered these options.
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian