Google Groups Archive Information

19 views
Skip to first unread message

Google Employee

unread,
Dec 21, 2001, 8:46:30 PM12/21/01
to
As many of you might know: Google Groups has recently extended its
index to offer coverage of 20 years of Usenet.

You can have a look at our announcement page which contains a "Usenet
timeline" of especially memorable articles and threads. We want to thank
the many users that contributed to this timeline. Special thanks go to
Andrew Tannenbaum, Brad Templeton, James "Kibo" Perry and Rob
Pike. Their insights into the history of Usenet were invaluable to us.

http://www.google.com/googlegroups/archive_announce_20.html


We have also received several inquiries about:

- The comprehensiveness of our new 20 year archive
- More information about the individual archives we merged together
- Various statistics about the new 20 year archive


The remainder of this post should help satisfy your curiosity. :-)

Time ranges covered by the different archives that we merged together:

1980's 1990's 2000's
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 ...
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu nnnnn ddddddddddddddddd
cccccccc ccccccc gggg...


More information about the individual archives:

u: The famous UT-Zoo archives. These were created by Henry Spencer
at the University of Toronto, Department of Zoology. They have
been extracted from the old 9-track tapes by David Wiseman, Bruce
Jones and Henry Spencer with the help of many others. These
archives are spotty in the non-tech field the further they
progress in time because the archival system could not handle the
increasing traffic of Usenet. Henry had to become more and more
selective over time. Nevertheless, these are the most valuable
and breathtaking archives to many of us. :)
n: Kent Landfield provided us with the complete NetNews 'Usenet on CDs'
collection. These archives are comprehensive for US hierarchies and
some international hierarchies.
c: We were about to build the extended index with gaps because we
thought there were no more comprehensive old archives to be found
(we started "archive hunting" over a year ago). But fortunately
Juergen Christoffel turned out to be our savior at the last minute -
well, rather the last three weeks - in which he worked tirelessly
for us to extract his archives from Exabyte and DAT tapes to fill
remaining gaps in coverage.
d: These are the archives that were part of Deja's assets which we
acquired in Feb 2001. All these have been available at
deja(news).com at some point. The coverage is comprehensive
except at various intervals (lasting between a day and a week).
The coverage for international hierarchies is also spotty for the
first few years.
g: We started archiving in Aug 2000. Our archives are comprehensive
for both US and international hierarchies.


Number of articles per year (roughly):

1981: 4 000 (from May 11)
1982: 27 000
1983: 62 000
1984: 108 000
1985: 158 000
1986: 101 000
1987: 117 000
1988: 185 000
1989: 480 000
1990: 1 203 000
1991: 2 085 000
1992: 9 920 000
1993: 8 011 000
1994: 14 737 000
1995: 21 064 000
1996: 52 635 000
1997: 80 044 000
1998: 107 063 000
1999: 129 113 000
2000: 132 585 000
2001: 149 808 000 (through Dec 20)


We estimate that our total coverage of Usenet is very close to "complete
as can be." We searched long and hard for more old archives to fill in
for remaining "spottiness" (e.g., more non-technical posts from the late
80s, more coverage of the earlier history of some international
hierarchies, archives for the first two years of Usenet - 1979 and 1980)
but we were not able to locate any yet. Currently we believe that no
other comprehensive archives exist anymore, but we would love to be
convinced otherwise. :-)

We are aware that there are many small collections of Usenet articles
that were saved by many dedicated individuals in the Usenet
community. Please understand that we cannot undertake the gargantuan
task of merging these with our existing archive.


If you need more information on how to use Google Groups:

http://groups.google.com/googlegroups/help.html


The best way to rummage through our old archives yourself is to use
specific date ranges on the Advanced Groups Search page:

http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search


If you have any comments about Google Groups, you can send them to:

groups-...@google.com


Thanks,
The Google Groups Team

nucleus

unread,
Dec 21, 2001, 9:57:28 PM12/21/01
to
In article <90cbefb1.01122...@posting.google.com>, groupm...@google.com (Google Employee) wrote:
>As many of you might know: Google Groups has recently extended its
>index to offer coverage of 20 years of Usenet.
>
>You can have a look at our announcement page which contains a "Usenet
>timeline" of especially memorable articles and threads. We want to thank
>the many users that contributed to this timeline. Special thanks go to
>Andrew Tannenbaum, Brad Templeton, James "Kibo" Perry and Rob
>Pike. Their insights into the history of Usenet were invaluable to us.

The most interesting aspect of usenet is its power
in terms of being an open ended, free form medium
of exchange of ideas.

For all practical purposes, the depth and breath
of it, there simply exist nothing on the Internet
that compares it in terms of power of exchange of ideas.

Some aspects of it, and specifically the idea of
big-8 represent the most interesting subject
from many different angles.

The big reorg, its roots and associated evidence
needs to be studied in much more details
and can shed the light on some most profound things.

Basically, the history of big-8 is the history
of a fraud, just as stated by Brad Templeton in
the following article, partially quoted below:

----------------------- Quote begin ------------------------

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: b...@templetons.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: USENET - it is over
References: <3A9353AB...@worldnet.att.net> <3C195139...@sfo.com>
<9vbl5t$4i3$1...@panix3.panix.com> <9vejea$spf$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>
Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999)
Originator: br...@news.netfunny.com (Brad Templeton)
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <wc7T7.10286$Kg2.1212411@rwcrnsc51>
NNTP-Posting-Host: l67T7-136854-Kg2-1210828@rwcrnsc51
X-Complaints-To: ab...@attbi.com
X-Trace: rwcrnsc51 1008533404 l67T7-136854-Kg2-1210828@rwcrnsc51 (Sun, 16 Dec
2001 20:10:04 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 20:10:04 GMT
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 20:10:04 GMT

[...]

As is the voting, which was just a fraud
to make people shut up once they lost a vote. (In those days, the debates
would get long and the person pushing for a group nobody else wanted would
never go away and admit defeat. Voting with the silly '100 more' rule
was not to create democracy, but to end the debate.)

[...]

----------------------- Quote end ------------------------

Now, since Brad Templeton was quoted in your post,
this issue definetely needs an investigation.

Because it follows from what Brad Templeton stated,
that Big-8 is in actuality a Big-Fraud.

It is a recorded history of totalitarianism and
raging fascism.

It is a history of most pervasive abuse, censorship
and criminal wrongdoing.

It is misrepresentation, lies and deceit
in the most pervasive form.

It is a history of virtual terrorism
and anihilation of thousands of dissidence
and all those, who opposed this humongous fraud
during the various times.

It is a history of literally millions of people
being affected by these criminals, the
"ruling elite", including, but not limited to:

1. David Lawrence, aka Tale, the fuehrer of big-8.

2. Russ Allbery, aka eagle, the godfather of brainwashing.

3. Jay Denebeim, aka the hitman of alt hierarchy,
routinely rmgrouping the groups in alt hierarchy
even though he is the member of the same gang
of big-8 as Russ and Tale.

4. Andrew Girth, the global anihilator and co-conspirator,
assisting David Kinny, so called moderator of comp.ai,
who took over the entire AI hierarchy and created
probably the most fascist and blatant system of
blacklisting and whitelisting in the entire history
of usenet. Andrew Gierth provided him with personal
protection and article anihilation/restoral on numerous
occasions.

5. Howard Knight, the obscessed conman, posing as some kind
of "net hero", one of the most perverted censors and criminals,
hunting down people, exposing their private information,
rediculing, harassing, torturing, abusing, cancelling
the articles by tens of thousands a day, and the list
has barely begun.

6. Chris Lewis, aka the "sheriff of usenet", virtual terrorist.
There is just mountains of information available on this subject.
On your own archives.

There are numerous others.

Out of hundreds of thousands of news administrators
throught the world, a group of these criminally minded
oppresors were able to effectively take over the
big-8 and sabotage the group creation process.

They operated in utter secrecy and routinely exchanged
private email, deciding the fate of the usenet users
behind the scenes, all on behalf of public interest.

They deluded all into believing they represent
the public in general, while they are but a self-appointed
group of virtual terrorists.

Eventually, the big-8 has been brought to its knees
and is now experiencing its darkest days.

The big-8 fuehrer, David Lawrence, never talks to mortals,
and it not even clear if he participates to any extent,
even though his email address is the "official",
"authorized" email address that can "legally" issue
the control messages regarding the group status and
creation.

Russ Allbery wrote his famous dictates they call
"guidelines" on the subjects of group creation
and has been pretty active in maintaining INN
news server software and active in development
and "improvements" of NNTP protocol as evidenced
by news.software.nntp archives.

There can be no doubt, he was instrumental
in some INN modifications as to strengten
the totalitarian nature of big-8, be it various
INN configuration files, scripts, or built-in
INN primitives and code at large.

As a result, there is encryption of the "officially"
"approved" addresses, PGP keys to make sure
the totalitarian dictators, running big-8,
are the only ones, who can affect it in ANY
visible manner.

Then there are "approved" lists of groups
and the checkgroup messages, used by Tale
to make sure no one but these criminals
can affect big-8 in any manner.

The list is goin on and on and on.

The entire big-8 hierarchy has tremendous
naming issue problems, even though those
very classification issues were used by
these criminals and totalitarian dictators
during the discussions on group creation,
to destroy the groups, they do not like.

In particular, there was a case with,
sci.education.science versus sci.science.education,
where the proponent of the group was insisting
on his version of the name of the group.
He happens to be a scientist, interested
in the issues of eduction in science.
He was harassed by these criminals and
was eventually forced to completely abandon
the idea of creating the group.

There was a case with with psychology in schools
group, where these group proponents were harassed
by the same criminals and the group was not
"allowed" to be created, even though there is
a very significan problem with the issues
of violence in schools and millions upon
millions of people worldwide need to have
a forum to discuss these issues.

There was a case with a group, dedicated
to single paret family issues. The proponents
were harassed, just as usual, and the group
was not created, even though it is one of the
most significan issues in the modern world
and there are millions upon millions of
single parent families and there needs to be
a forum to discuss those issues.

We can write a book on the history of totalitarianism
and fascism on big-8.

In fact, this book is already written,
and it is on your own archives.

Rob Maxwell

unread,
Dec 22, 2001, 2:09:24 AM12/22/01
to

"nucleus" <nuc...@invalid.you.are> wrote in message
news:a00so2$2c3$1...@news.ukr.net...

>
> The big-8 fuehrer, David Lawrence, never talks to mortals,
> and it not even clear if he participates to any extent,
> even though his email address is the "official",
> "authorized" email address that can "legally" issue
> the control messages regarding the group status and
> creation.
>

Hmm, I guess that makes me a net.god as I have email from him. ;) It was a
technical issue unrelated to the Big 8 but, nonetheless it's an answered
email from his real email address.

BTW, group...@isc.org will be handed off to whomever replaces tale. But,
then again, that further gets in the way of your "truth".

-Rob
(who knows he probably shouldn't have replied.)

nucleus

unread,
Dec 22, 2001, 2:20:59 AM12/22/01
to
In article <a01bjm$i29rk$1...@ID-80930.news.dfncis.de>, "Rob Maxwell" <robu...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>"nucleus" <nuc...@invalid.you.are> wrote in message
>news:a00so2$2c3$1...@news.ukr.net...
>
>>
>> The big-8 fuehrer, David Lawrence, never talks to mortals,
>> and it not even clear if he participates to any extent,
>> even though his email address is the "official",
>> "authorized" email address that can "legally" issue
>> the control messages regarding the group status and
>> creation.
>>
>
>Hmm, I guess that makes me a net.god as I have email from him. ;)

How exciting.
Is he simply a coward
or he had enough by now?

> It was a
>technical issue unrelated to the Big 8 but, nonetheless it's an answered
>email from his real email address.

>BTW, group...@isc.org will be handed off to whomever replaces tale. But,
>then again, that further gets in the way of your "truth".

Truth is neither mine, nor yours, nor anybody else's.

It is not an object
and it can not be posessed.

The best formulation of it I am aware of is simpliest thing
in the world:

That which is.

Arthur L. Rubin

unread,
Dec 22, 2001, 2:56:53 PM12/22/01
to
nucleus wrote:

> Truth is neither mine, nor yours, nor anybody else's.

Well, it certainly isn't YOURS.

--
Arthur L. Rubin 216-...@mcimail.com
(who also knows he shoulsn't have posted)


James Logajan

unread,
Dec 22, 2001, 6:17:22 PM12/22/01
to
Google Employee <groupm...@google.com> wrote:
> Number of articles per year (roughly):
>
> 1981: 4 000 (from May 11)
> 1982: 27 000
> 1983: 62 000
> 1984: 108 000
> 1985: 158 000
> 1986: 101 000
> 1987: 117 000
> 1988: 185 000
> 1989: 480 000
> 1990: 1 203 000
> 1991: 2 085 000
> 1992: 9 920 000
> 1993: 8 011 000
> 1994: 14 737 000
> 1995: 21 064 000
> 1996: 52 635 000
> 1997: 80 044 000
> 1998: 107 063 000
> 1999: 129 113 000
> 2000: 132 585 000
> 2001: 149 808 000 (through Dec 20)

Out of curiosity I graphed these numbers in Mathcad using both linear and
logarithmic scales. Over the entire 21 year period there is a crude
approximation to exponential growth. But it is quite crude, probably due to
the disparity of the sources. If one sticks to only to the period covered
entirely by Dejanews and Google (1996 - 2001; partial 1995 excluded), then
growth appears to be linear, not exponential. It would be interesting to
compare these numbers to number of web sites, general internet traffic,
number of domains, etc. with respect to time. Anyone got URLs to those kinds
of statistics? Has exponential growth already given way to linear growth in
these other areas? Is Usenet traffic in step with growth of the rest of the
net, or lagging? I'm just curious.

nucleus

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 10:59:45 PM12/23/01
to
In article <3C2469...@mcimail.com>, "Arthur L. Rubin" <216-...@mcimail.com> wrote:
>nucleus wrote:
>
>> Truth is neither mine, nor yours, nor anybody else's.
>
>Well, it certainly isn't YOURS.

How would you know, slime?

Arthur L. Rubin

unread,
Dec 24, 2001, 1:05:13 PM12/24/01
to
nucleus wrote:
>
> In article <3C2469...@mcimail.com>, "Arthur L. Rubin" <216-...@mcimail.com> wrote:
> >nucleus wrote:
> >
> >> Truth is neither mine, nor yours, nor anybody else's.
> >
> >Well, it certainly isn't YOURS.
>
> How would you know, slime?

Let me rephrase. Nothing you have said about the
group creation process is substantially true. There
may be aspects of truth in some of it.

Nehmo Sergheyev

unread,
Dec 25, 2001, 3:08:54 AM12/25/01
to
Nehmo
I made a quick graph too
http://home.kc.rr.com/missouri/postingnumbers.htm

If you have a mathematical analysis and some better graphs please send
them to
neh...@hotmail.com

Whatever you have, it doesn't have to be in presentable form when you
send it to me.

James Logajan wrote


> Out of curiosity I graphed these numbers in Mathcad using both linear
and
> logarithmic scales. Over the entire 21 year period there is a crude
> approximation to exponential growth. But it is quite crude, probably
due to
> the disparity of the sources. If one sticks to only to the period
covered
> entirely by Dejanews and Google (1996 - 2001; partial 1995 excluded),
then
> growth appears to be linear, not exponential. It would be interesting
to
> compare these numbers to number of web sites, general internet
traffic,
> number of domains, etc. with respect to time. Anyone got URLs to those
kinds
> of statistics? Has exponential growth already given way to linear
growth in
> these other areas? Is Usenet traffic in step with growth of the rest
of the
> net, or lagging? I'm just curious.

Google Employee wrote:
> > Number of articles per year (roughly):
> >
> > 1981: 4 000 (from May 11)
> > 1982: 27 000
> > 1983: 62 000
> > 1984: 108 000
> > 1985: 158 000
> > 1986: 101 000
> > 1987: 117 000
> > 1988: 185 000
> > 1989: 480 000
> > 1990: 1 203 000
> > 1991: 2 085 000
> > 1992: 9 920 000
> > 1993: 8 011 000
> > 1994: 14 737 000
> > 1995: 21 064 000
> > 1996: 52 635 000
> > 1997: 80 044 000
> > 1998: 107 063 000
> > 1999: 129 113 000
> > 2000: 132 585 000
> > 2001: 149 808 000 (through Dec 20)

--
**************************
* Nehmo Sergheyev *
**************************
http://home.kc.rr.com/missouri/Susan_Talks.htm

Nehmo Sergheyev

unread,
Dec 25, 2001, 5:11:02 PM12/25/01
to
James Logajan
> Out of curiosity I graphed these numbers [article posting statistics]
> in Mathcad using both linear and
> logarithmic scales. Over the entire 21 year period there is a crude
> approximation to exponential growth. But it is quite crude, probably due to
> the disparity of the sources. If one sticks to only to the period covered
> entirely by Dejanews and Google (1996 - 2001; partial 1995 excluded), then
> growth appears to be linear, not exponential. It would be interesting to
> compare these numbers to number of web sites, general internet traffic,
> number of domains, etc. with respect to time. Anyone got URLs to those kinds
> of statistics? Has exponential growth already given way to linear growth in
> these other areas? Is Usenet traffic in step with growth of the rest of the
> net, or lagging? I'm just curious.

Nehmo
I made a quick (and crude) graph too
http://home.kc.rr.com/missouri/postingnumbers.htm

I believe we are seeing the s-curve of new product introductions.
Partial saturation is beginning to compete with the hungry void that
once dominated. In other words, the pioneer phase is beginning to
reach its knee.

--
neh...@hotmail.com

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages