24 days until . . .

[D]

* george washington's 292nd birthday

* 512 years after amerigo vespucci died

* usenet bids farewell to google groups

[gbbgu]

Is anywhere keeping stats on usenet posts? I wonder if/how much the numbers
will drop.

--
gbbgu

[D]

i'm only a layman but experienced user of usenet newsgroups, and what may
happen after google pulls the plug is a looming question that news server
administrators could be concerned about? but from what i've gathered from
reading their discussions in other mostly server-related newsgroups (e.g.
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet, news.admin.peering, news.software.nntp, alt.
free.newsservers, alt.privacy.anon-server), it's more like "wait and see"
because of so many factors involved . . . probably it will result in more
spam from non-google servers, but a significant reduction in spam overall;
ideally news servers that allow posting will make it progressively harder
to register for posting privileges, and more strictly limit cross-posting,
off-topic and other troll tactics that google groups became notorious for;
ironically, posts about google groups going away are universally on-topic
in all newsgroups because they have so badly spammed every busy newsgroup;
it will be interesting to see what happens in the wake of "google groups" . . .

[kyonshi]

even if they drop, will the quality improve is the question

[Steve Bonine]

Depends on how you calculate "quality".

Spam will decrease. That will affect "the numbers". If you define
"quality" as the percentage of legitimate posts divided by total posts,
the "quality" will increase.

But there are people who post legitimate content via Google. Not a huge
number perhaps, but the population of Usenet users is small. Some of
these will obtain a newsreader and a news provider and continue to
participate in Usenet. Many of them will not. Thus the impact of
losing Google as a way to post to Usenet will deprive it of some amount
of useful input.

[yeti]

kyonshi <gmk...@gmail.com> writes:

> even if they drop, will the quality improve is the question

At least the countdown to the DoD (day-of-drop) will disappear?

--
I do not bite, I just want to play.

[Retro Guy]

Steve Bonine wrote:

> kyonshi wrote:
>> On 1/30/2024 3:33 AM, gbbgu wrote:
>>>
>>> Is anywhere keeping stats on usenet posts? I wonder if/how much the
>>> numbers
>>> will drop.
>>>
>>
>> even if they drop, will the quality improve is the question

> Depends on how you calculate "quality".

> Spam will decrease. That will affect "the numbers". If you define
> "quality" as the percentage of legitimate posts divided by total posts,
> the "quality" will increase.

It's interesting to see spam (at least "caught" spam by nocem) has decreased from near 100,000 per day to around 28,000 per day now. An almost 75% reduction that has mostly not moved to other servers. This is a good sign in my small brain opinion.

> But there are people who post legitimate content via Google. Not a huge
> number perhaps, but the population of Usenet users is small. Some of
> these will obtain a newsreader and a news provider and continue to
> participate in Usenet. Many of them will not. Thus the impact of
> losing Google as a way to post to Usenet will deprive it of some amount
> of useful input.

There has been quite an increase in usage of my web interfaces of fleeing gg users. Most (almost all, but I've banned a few) of them seem to be legitimate posters contributing content that others appreciate.

There also seem to be quite a number (only judging by comments in groups) of people that do not plan to continue using the newsgroups once gg is gone. Will this be a real loss to Usenet? Not sure.

--
Retro Guy

[Adam H. Kerman]

They stubbornly refuse to change their own posting habits. It's not like
the rest of us haven't explained to them what they might do. They've
been pointed to RockSolid on novabbs, which is accessed remotely with a
browser although the client may be run locally, for those who continue
to refuse to try to learn to use a newsreader and run their own client
locally.

Doing nothing resulting in leaving Usenet is still a choice.

No "buts" Steve. Google's neglect of its own Usenet servers happened
over decades. They lost interest in Usenet shortly after the Dejanews
acquisition. Massive amounts of abuse originated via Google Groups for a
very long time; Google refused to address the situation. The only
difference between what happened throughout much of 2023 was that it
became public knowledge among non-Usenet users, exposing Google's bad
reputation to everybody. It was so much easier to simply leave Usenet
than to address the problem.

There is always fallout whenever Google drops a service, but in this
case, this was never a service that Google had monopolized and the
network itself hasn't been taken down.

Poeple who will drop off Usenet because of their own refusal to look for
an alternative will be lost. It's the way of things. The rest of us
can't force them to change their method of communication.

I cannot emphasize how much it is their own choice that they've done
nothing about it.

[Adam H. Kerman]

yeti <ye...@tilde.institute> wrote:
>kyonshi <gmk...@gmail.com> writes:

>>even if they drop, will the quality improve is the question

>At least the countdown to the DoD (day-of-drop) will disappear?

Yer hysterical. Yeah, that annoyance will disappear, only to be replaced
with an all-new annoyance. Fish gotta swim, trolls gotta troll. Troll
feeders gotta keep on feeding those trolls.

Welcome to Usenet, same as the old.

[D]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 20:44:34 +0042, yeti <ye...@tilde.institute> wrote:
>kyonshi <gmk...@gmail.com> writes:
>> even if they drop, will the quality improve is the question
>
>At least the countdown to the DoD (day-of-drop) will disappear?

february twenty-second, two thousand twenty-four: a day that will live in?
if google pulls the plug, that could become another commemorative holiday
like eternal september, mensis februarius (cleansing, disalienation etc.)

[Steve Bonine]

Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> Poeple who will drop off Usenet because of their own refusal to look for
> an alternative will be lost. It's the way of things. The rest of us
> can't force them to change their method of communication.
>
> I cannot emphasize how much it is their own choice that they've done
> nothing about it.

I believe that folks make a cost/benefit decision based on the
information available to them. The cost in this case is finding an
alternative to Google and learning how to use it, a task which is much
more difficult for the "button pushers" than for those of us who diddle
with software as part of our lives. I am not denigrating this segment
of user; "button pushers" can make important contributions to groups
that are not computer-technical.

The benefit, for non-spam users, is the pleasure and/or information that
they accrue from participating in Usenet newsgroup(s). How many
thriving newsgroups are left? Not many, and virtually all of them have
non-Usenet alternatives. I think there will be current users who will
just say "It's not worth it" and move to alternatives. That is their
decision, and it makes perfect sense.

The spammers will make a similar decision . . . back in "the day" it was
an easy decision to spam Usenet - the cost was essentially zero and
there were lots of readers of the spam. Today that population of
readers is a tiny fraction of what it was. Why would a spammer invest
actual time and money to reach that small audience? I expect most of
the ones who were spamming via Google will just abandon Usenet.

For me, personally, it's just a matter of habit and curiosity. This is
the only newsgroup that I occasionally monitor (and of course this whole
thread is wildly off-topic here). Usenet is such a shadow of its former
self that it's no longer relevant except to a very few legacy users.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>Poeple who will drop off Usenet because of their own refusal to look for
>>an alternative will be lost. It's the way of things. The rest of us
>>can't force them to change their method of communication.

>>I cannot emphasize how much it is their own choice that they've done
>>nothing about it.

>I believe that folks make a cost/benefit decision based on the
>information available to them. The cost in this case is finding an
>alternative to Google and learning how to use it, a task which is much
>more difficult for the "button pushers" than for those of us who diddle
>with software as part of our lives. I am not denigrating this segment
>of user; "button pushers" can make important contributions to groups
>that are not computer-technical.

Nevertheless, the rest of us have tried to make it as easy as possible
for them by providing lists of News servers and newsreaders and even Web
interfaces. It's not beyond their ability. They just haven't done so.

>. . .

>The spammers will make a similar decision . . . back in "the day" it was
>an easy decision to spam Usenet - the cost was essentially zero and
>there were lots of readers of the spam. Today that population of
>readers is a tiny fraction of what it was. Why would a spammer invest
>actual time and money to reach that small audience? I expect most of
>the ones who were spamming via Google will just abandon Usenet.

What the hell are you talking about? The spammers aren't trying to reach
Usenet users only but improve their SEO rankings in Google Search.

>. . .

[D]

as a layman i'm inclined to ask naive questions . . . have google groups posts
affected google search rankings, possibly independent of their nearly obsolete
usenet connection which might help to explain the incomparably vast quantities
of spam passed along to usenet newsgroups without any regard whatsoever to the
irreparable consequences they have wrought against unwary users of this user's
network? some might say it's deliberate, "embrace, extend, extinguish" tactics

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <ccfbbd5c5bd80ef3...@dizum.com>, D <J@M> wrote:
>as a layman i'm inclined to ask naive questions . . . have google groups posts
>affected google search rankings, possibly independent of their nearly obsolete
>usenet connection which might help to explain the incomparably vast quantities
>of spam passed along to usenet newsgroups without any regard whatsoever to the
>irreparable consequences they have wrought against unwary users of this user's
>network? some might say it's deliberate, "embrace, extend, extinguish" tactics

Absolutely, yes.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."