Google Acquires Deja Usenet Archives
Jonathan Grobe
Google Acquires Usenet Discussion Service and Significant Assets from
Deja.com
Award-Winning Search Engine Launches Beta Version of Usenet Newsgroup
Search
MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. - February 12, 2001 - Google Inc. today
announced that is has acquired Deja.com's Usenet Discussion Service.
This acquisition provides Google with Deja's entire Usenet archive
(dating back to 1995), software, domain names including deja.com and
dejanews.com, company trademarks, and other intellectual property.
Financial terms of this transaction were not released.
Available now at http://groups.google.com, this powerful new Usenet
search feature enables Google users to access the wealth of
information contained in more than six months of Usenet newsgroup
postings and message threads. Once the full Deja Usenet archive is
added, users will be able to search and browse more than 500 million
archived messages with the speed and efficiency of a Google search. In
addition to expanding the amount of searchable data, Google will soon
provide improved browsing capabilities and newsgroup posting.
"We welcome Deja's loyal users into the growing community of Google
users worldwide," said Larry Page, Google CEO and co-founder. "With
more than 500 million individual messages and growing fast, Usenet and
its thriving community is one of the most active and valuable
information sources on the Internet."
"The acquisition of Deja's significant assets will enable Google to
offer an important new source of information to both Deja and Google
users," said Omid Kordestani, Google's vice president of business
development and sales. "We will continue to build and acquire the
necessary technologies to provide the best search experience to
millions of Google users worldwide."
The award-winning Google search engine serves 70 million searches per
day, with approximately half of these searches performed on the
company's homepage at http://www.google.com. Google offers a wide
variety of custom search service products and currently licenses its
search technology to more than 120 companies in 30 countries.
About Google Inc.
With the largest index of websites available on the World Wide Web and
the industry's most advanced search technology, Google Inc. delivers
the fastest and easiest way to find relevant information on the
Internet. Google's technological innovations have earned the company
numerous industry awards and citations, including two Webby Awards;
WIRED magazine's Reader Raves Award; Best Internet Innovation and
Technical Excellence Award from PC Magazine; Best Search Engine on the
Internet from Yahoo! Internet Life; Top Ten Best Cybertech from TIME
magazine; and Editor's Pick from CNET. A growing number of companies
worldwide, including Yahoo!, AOL/Netscape, and Cisco Systems, rely on
Google to power search on their websites. A privately held company
based in Mountain View, Calif., Google's investors include Kleiner
Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital. More information about
Google can be found on the Google site at http://www.google.com.
###
Google is a trademark of Google Inc. All other company and product
names may be trademarks of the respective companies with which they
are associated.
Google Contacts:
David Krane
650-930-3596
dkr...@google.com Cindy McCaffrey
(650) 930-3524
ci...@google.com
--
Jonathan Grobe
Peter B. Steiger
>[Any comment on this press release?]
>
>Google Acquires Usenet Discussion Service and Significant Assets from
>Deja.com
So far, I can't get it to work. Even simple ego surfing
(author="Steiger") fails; there's also no option to limit the
date range (not that it matters if it can't find anything anyway).
I wish they'd leave the Deja search engine in place until the
Google engine is fully debugged. Bah!
Peter B. Steiger
Cheyenne, WY
----
If you reply by email, send it to pbs at com dot
canada (or vice-versa). All advertisements will be
returned to your postmaster, eh!
Jay Denebeim
Peter B. Steiger <see...@for.email.address> wrote:
>On 12 Feb 2001 19:15:03 GMT, Jonathan Grobe sez:
>>[Any comment on this press release?]
>>
>>Google Acquires Usenet Discussion Service and Significant Assets from
>>Deja.com
>
>So far, I can't get it to work. Even simple ego surfing
>(author="Steiger") fails; there's also no option to limit the
>date range (not that it matters if it can't find anything anyway).
It looks like they've just fed the deja database into google's
software, try it like a web search. Just enter 'Steiger'.
Unfortunately the display that comes back is just like out of a search
engine.
IOW it's not ready for prime time, although I'm glad google bought
them.
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.org *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.org *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.org *
Bert Hyman
<3a8840cd....@news.cheyne1.wy.home.com>:
>On 12 Feb 2001 19:15:03 GMT, Jonathan Grobe sez:
>>[Any comment on this press release?]
>>
>>Google Acquires Usenet Discussion Service and Significant Assets
>>from Deja.com
>
>So far, I can't get it to work. Even simple ego surfing
>(author="Steiger") fails; there's also no option to limit the
>date range (not that it matters if it can't find anything anyway).
Try the "Advanced Search" page
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search, where you'll find fields
for Newsgroup and Author.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@visi.com
Ron Natalie
Jay Denebeim wrote:
> Unfortunately the display that comes back is just like out of a search
> engine.
>
> IOW it's not ready for prime time, although I'm glad google bought
> them.
I'm not. What a bunch of megloamaical bastards. They're not even
honoring X-No-Archive. You get 157,000 hits if you search for on
x-no-archive.
Aahz Maruch
>
>[Any comment on this press release?]
It's about the best possible news, overall. I expect there'll be some
bobbles and growing pains, but I can't imagine any company that
could/would do a better job and all too many that would do far, far
worse.
--
--- Aahz (Copyright 2001 by aa...@pobox.com)
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het <*> http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
'Gender' isn't a definition, it's a heuristic. --Aahz
Rob Kelk
Any header that starts with "X-" is experimental. Why should they
honour an experimental header?
Yes, I am asking in order to start a debate. My view (repeat, *my* view
- not the governent's) has always been that any posts made to a public
forum might end up saved off by *someone* and used against the poster in
the future, so there's really no point in putting faith in a header that
isn't defined in the RFCs.
--
Rob Kelk Personal address: rob...@ottawa.com
Any opinions here are mine, not the Government's.
Ron Natalie
Rob Kelk wrote:
>
> Any header that starts with "X-" is experimental. Why should they
> honour an experimental header?
Because, by their own adminssion it is an accepted technological means
to indicate that the creator of the work is not authorizing the archiving
of the message. It's clear from their pages that they know what the intent
of this is. This puts them in direct violation of the DMCA.
>
> Yes, I am asking in order to start a debate. My view (repeat, *my* view
> - not the governent's) has always been that any posts made to a public
> forum might end up saved off by *someone* and used against the poster in
> the future, so there's really no point in putting faith in a header that
> isn't defined in the RFCs.
Thats a fine view for you to have, but it's not mine and it's not the
law. What Google is doing is clearly illegal.
Rob Kelk
>
> Rob Kelk wrote:
>
> >
> > Any header that starts with "X-" is experimental. Why should they
> > honour an experimental header?
>
> Because, by their own adminssion it is an accepted technological means
> to indicate that the creator of the work is not authorizing the archiving
> of the message. It's clear from their pages that they know what the intent
> of this is. This puts them in direct violation of the DMCA.
Sorry, what's "DMCA"? I assume that's one of the laws in the USA, but I
haven't had much chance to follow your legal system lately.
And if/since this is the accepted means, shouldn't it be in an RFC?
<snip>
Ron Natalie
Rob Kelk wrote:
> Sorry, what's "DMCA"? I assume that's one of the laws in the USA, but I
> haven't had much chance to follow your legal system lately.
Digital Millenium Copyright Act. It's a change to our copyright law to
make things more amenable to the database providers (of which GOOGLE is
one of the beneficiaries). Since I'm in the US, and GOOGLE is in the
US (California), it's directly applicable to their infringement of my
copyrgihts.
>
> And if/since this is the accepted means, shouldn't it be in an RFC?
>
It's been proposed. But it makes no difference. DEJA knew what it meant
and supported it. GOOGLE knows what it means, but choose to violate it.
Since this is a specifically actionalble (i.e., can sue for $$$) part of
the act, I wonder how long it's going to take someone to take a pot shot
at them.
Jan Schaumann
And all these hits have what in common? The words "x-no-archive" in the
/Subject/ or the /Body/ of the message.
Also:
+--from http://groups.google.com/googlegroups/help.html --
|
| 10.I do not want you to archive my article(s)! How can I remove articles
| that I've posted from Google's archive?
|
| We are sympathetic to those who would like for their
| previous Usenet postings to no longer show up on Google
| Groups. Google supports the 'X-No-archive: yes' header,
| and we will not archive any newly posted articles that
| contain this text in the header. A request to remove
| articles that do not have this header is known in the
| industry as a "nuke" request; Google is not in a
| position to automatically remove such posts in this beta
| version.
|
| It is Google's policy to respond to notices of alleged
| infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium
| Copyright Act in an appropriate manner under such Act
| and other applicable intellectual property laws,
| including the removal or disabling of access to material
| claimed to be the subject of infringing activity. For
| more information, see our Terms of Service.
|
| 11.Why are old posts that I nuked showing up when I search for
| them on Google?
|
| Google's current usenet search includes postings from
| August 2000 onward that have been archived by Google. As
| soon as possible, Google will use the information
| contained in the Deja archive to begin honoring nuke
| requests made by Deja users.
|
+-------------------------------------------------------
AND:
UCMA is *US* law - the internet != US.
-Jan
--
Jan Schaumann <http://www.netmeister.org>
I want this V-Chip out of me! It has stunted my vocabulary.
I R A Darth Aggie
<slrn98gdhm.s...@worf.netins.net> wrote:
+ [Any comment on this press release?]
+
+ Google Acquires Usenet Discussion Service and Significant Assets from
+ Deja.com
Yeah, Deja might become useful again...
James
--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
isn't looking good, either.
I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.
I R A Darth Aggie
Rob Kelk <rob...@ottawa.com>, in
<3A885C49...@ottawa.com> wrote:
+ Ron Natalie <r...@spamcop.net> wrote:
+ > Because, by their own adminssion it is an accepted technological means
+ > to indicate that the creator of the work is not authorizing the archiving
+ > of the message. It's clear from their pages that they know what the intent
+ > of this is. This puts them in direct violation of the DMCA.
+ Sorry, what's "DMCA"? I assume that's one of the laws in the USA, but I
+ haven't had much chance to follow your legal system lately.
Digital Millenium Copyright Act, a mass-media end-round on 20+ years
of Fair Use bought and paid for by RIAA and MPAA (recording and motion
picture associations, respectively). With any luck, it should be ruled
unconstitutional by the end of the year...
+ And if/since this is the accepted means, shouldn't it be in an RFC?
One would think so, but when as that stopped a lawyer?
Ron Natalie
> AND:
> UCMA is *US* law - the internet != US.
Yes, but Google is a US corporation, and the illegal activity is taking
place in the US, so it is subject to the law.
Ron Natalie
"J.J. Pearce" wrote:
>
>
> I see a /lot/ of people (newbies, mostly) putting 'X-No-archive' in
> the body of their posts, rather than making it a real header. TTBOMK,
> this just doesn't work and could account for many of the results in
> Ron's search...
>
Worked fine for DEJA until GOOGLE got ahold of them. DEJA recognized
that many posters were using lame versions of the news composers (like
NETSCAPE) that wouldn't insert the header line.
Taki Kogoma
to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet decree...
IIRC, if "X-No-Archive: yes" was the *first* line in the article body,
deja would honor it.
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk | "I'll get a life when someone
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma) | demonstrates that it would be
quirk @ swcp.com | superior to what I have now."
Veteran of the '91 sf-lovers re-org. | -- Gym Quirk
Jan Schaumann
doesn't matter. If it's not a header it shouldn't be treated like one. That's
just like Outlook Express pretending that
begin something.txt
is an attachment
end
when it's not.
If the words "x-no-archive" appear in the body or the subject, a search on
these words should certainly reveal them and it would be rude to simply assume
that it's a header.
-Jan
--
Jan Schaumann <http://www.netmeister.org>
Hermes: "The poor demented honky."
Rob Kelk
Okay, I think I understand where you're coming from now. Thanks.
Russ Allbery
> It's been proposed. But it makes no difference. DEJA knew what it
> meant and supported it. GOOGLE knows what it means, but choose to
> violate it.
You're attributing to malice what may well be adequately explained by
immediately post-acquisition chaos. Getting this detail right before they
said anything would have been nice, but you don't know what sorts of time
constraints they may have been under to do *something* and I find it
unlikely that making the whole archive disappear until they sorted out
that detail would have been viable from the marketing standpoint.
Assuming that they were even aware of it as an issue; who knows what
information they got from Deja.
I'd recommend not getting too upset about anything until after a month or
so to let things settle down.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Sylvan Butler
>Digital Millenium Copyright Act. It's a change to our copyright law to
>make things more amenable to the database providers (of which GOOGLE is
>one of the beneficiaries). Since I'm in the US, and GOOGLE is in the
>US (California), it's directly applicable to their infringement of my
>copyrgihts.
Hmm. Where is your post with x-no-archive in the headers archived by
google since they agreed to honor that header?
Did you read the hits turned up by your search on why x-no-archive
doesn't work?
sdb
--
| Sylvan Butler | Not speaking for Hewlett-Packard | sbutler-boi.hp.com |
| Watch out for my e-mail address. Thank UCE. #### change ^ to @ #### |
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. --Benjamin Franklin, 1759
"Don't Tread On Me!"
Damian
>to indicate that the creator of the work is not authorizing the
>archiving of the message.
Utter bull. When you post to Usenet you implicitly agree that you are
speaking in a public forum. If you didn't give anyone permission to
archive your message it wouldn't appear on Usenet _period_. Are you
going to give each and every server on Usenet your message is distributed
to permission individually? Did you give Skycache permission? Did you
give Usenetserver permission? Of course not. What are they doing that's
different from Deja? Holding on to it longer? Hell, Giganews has 3
months of text retention. What's the line between long retention and an
archive? Who decides that? You? Each poster? Fine, Deja isn't an
archive, it's a news server with really long retention. End of
discussion.
>Thats a fine view for you to have, but it's not mine and it's not the
>law. What Google is doing is clearly illegal.
Are you a lawyer? I didn't think so.
--
-Damian
E-Mail address is valid
J.B. Nicholson-Owens
> I wish they'd leave the Deja search engine in place until the
> Google engine is fully debugged. Bah!
I concur. Deja's search engine was better, the display of matching articles
was better and the speed was always fine (as far as I've seen)--not that
Google is a slouch on speed, but if it's not broken... I also liked how one
could retreive the text version of an article (just the article, no markup).
Finally, I liked how one could retreive an article given its message-ID. I
wish they had kept the old interface and search engine around until they
were ready to go with their new stuff. I hope their new database allows
these features too.
JayDee
Grobe) wrote:
>[Any comment on this press release?]
just don't dump the Deja Classic option...
JayDee
wrote:
>Thats a fine view for you to have, but it's not mine and it's not the
>law. What Google is doing is clearly illegal.
talk to the investors re. these details
meanwhile, the world is watching...
I like that
Vincent Lefevre
Ron Natalie <r...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> Thats a fine view for you to have, but it's not mine and it's not the
> law. What Google is doing is clearly illegal.
I disagree. BTW, I hope you won't sue me because I quoted a part of
your article. :)
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vin...@vinc17.org> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/> - 100%
validated HTML - Acorn Risc PC, Yellow Pig 17, Championnat International des
Jeux Mathématiques et Logiques, TETRHEX, etc.
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / SPACES project at LORIA
Christopher Jahn
There is no legal requirement for anyone to honor "x-no-
archive"; it was developed by DejaNews as a courtesy, and google
is under no obligation to honor it, although I expect that as
they are flooded by complaints, they will.
I've never understood the "x-no-archive" mentality; you make
public comments, they are part of the public record. You don't
want to be in the public record, then don't speak in public.
Having said that, I did force RemarQ to filter out my posts when
they started ad-linking. But I made THEM figure it out; I was
specifically denying them the right to link my words to product
endorsements; I was not interested in getting "off-record".
Of course, they didn't do it until I billed them; then they
dropped me right off their servers.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
All suspects are innocent until proven Discordian in a Court of
Chaos.
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
Adam Bailey
That doesn't necessarily mean anything. Do the same search with
Deja.com (if possible), and you'll see just how many people mis-type
it or put it in the wrong place.
I really should trim the Newsgroups header, but I'm too lazy.
--
Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois
ad...@lull.org | Finger/Web for PGP
ada...@aol.com | http://www.lull.org/adam/
Stepper
Yeah its currently CRUDDY, looking and working. I think google
got more than they bargained for. Dejanews was not just the database
but the nice way it was set up. I hope Google makes it about as good
again. I just jumped on their today to do a search and found it out = (
Kjetil Torgrim Homme
> Yeah its currently CRUDDY, looking and working. I think google got
> more than they bargained for. Dejanews was not just the database
> but the nice way it was set up. I hope Google makes it about as
> good again. I just jumped on their today to do a search and found
> it out = (
CRUDDY?! It's already a _great_ improvement over the old Deja user
interface, even with Jeremy Nixon's frontend. It's much more
efficient to use. The short context is very helpful. The
presentation of threads is a bit lacking, though, there ought to be a
table of contents presented as a tree at the top.
(I don't care about the newsreader service, just the searching.)
Kjetil T.
Kai Henningsen
> I concur. Deja's search engine was better,
Except ithad this nasty habit of being broken. It didn't find everything
that matched the query, and it found lots of stuff that didn't match the
query. I've yet to see Google do that - the worst is when a Web page has
changed in the mean time (but Google still shows the old version, of
course), something that's not likely to happen with Usenet!
Kai
--
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
"... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it."
- Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu)
Kai Henningsen
> Yeah its currently CRUDDY, looking and working. I think google
> got more than they bargained for. Dejanews was not just the database
> but the nice way it was set up. I hope Google makes it about as good
> again. I just jumped on their today to do a search and found it out = (
Deja? Nice way it was set up?
Oh boy. Pull the other one, it's got bells on!
Zonky
>
>
I hardly see how. You're posting to Usenet, and every server will have a
different article hold time. From an hour to well, infinite. I don't see
Google cannot hold their articles for a time they choose?
--
Please remove my_pants when replying.
Martijn van Buul
[ X-No-Archive ]
> It's been proposed. But it makes no difference. DEJA knew what it meant
> and supported it. GOOGLE knows what it means, but choose to violate it.
Hmm. Deja didn't support it either, did it? If Google returns a bunch
of articles with an X-No-Archive header from Deja's database, then
Deja archived them after all..
--
Martijn van Buul - Pi...@dohd.org - http://www.stack.nl/~martijnb/
Geek code: G-- - Visit OuterSpace: mud.stack.nl 3333
Kees J. Bot: The sum of CPU power and user brain power is a constant.
Johan M. Olofsson
Rob Kelk wrote:
>> Any header that starts with "X-" is experimental. Why should they
>> honour an experimental header?
>>
>> Yes, I am asking in order to start a debate. My view (repeat, *my*
>> view - not the governent's) has always been that any posts made to a
>> public forum might end up saved off by *someone* and used against the
>> poster in the future, so there's really no point in putting faith in a
>> header that isn't defined in the RFCs.
> Thats a fine view for you to have, but it's not mine and it's not the
> law. What Google is doing is clearly illegal.
It is not _that_ simple.
Usenet covers several countries, with different laws, and different degree
of intended enforcement of their laws in this respect.
Hence it's (in my opinion) more of a question for Usenet as such than for
the judicial authorities of some or another country.
Just to give an EU-example, follow the two links from
http://www.lysator.liu.se/nordic/archive/index.html
/Johan Olofsson
piranha
> In article <slrn98gdhm.s...@worf.netins.net>, Jonathan Grobe <> wrote:
> >
> >[Any comment on this press release?]
>
umm. IMO the best possible news would have been the demise of the
deja archive. byebye. usenet back to being ephemeral, not half-
assedly archived, with posts missing left and right (as in, if
there is a permanent archive, then a full archive; screw the badly
named x-no-archive header; do that right or don't do it).
that said, since i don't get my wish:
> I expect there'll be some bobbles and growing pains,
leaving the deja engine in place until they've migrated would've
been better to begin with.
> but I can't imagine any company that
> could/would do a better job and all too many that would do far, far
> worse.
here i agree.
--
-piranha
Peter da Silva
Martijn van Buul <pino+news_sof...@dohd.org> wrote:
>It occurred to me that Ron Natalie wrote in news.software.readers:
>> and supported it. GOOGLE knows what it means, but choose to violate it.
>Hmm. Deja didn't support it either, did it? If Google returns a bunch
>of articles with an X-No-Archive header from Deja's database, then
>Deja archived them after all..
That's what was bothering me. Are y'all sure that Deja's DB is actually in use
yet?
It's X-No-Archive, after all, not X-No-Display.
And apparently they didn't really nuke articles when asked, either, they
just hid them.
--
Rev. Peter da Silva, ULC. WWFD?
"Be conservative in what you generate, and liberal in what you accept"
-- Matthew 10:16 (l.trans)
Paul Bolchover
Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
>In article <slrn98i3f4.kgj.pino+...@mud.stack.nl>,
>Martijn van Buul <pino+news_sof...@dohd.org> wrote:
>>It occurred to me that Ron Natalie wrote in news.software.readers:
>>> It's been proposed. But it makes no difference. DEJA knew what it meant
>>> and supported it. GOOGLE knows what it means, but choose to violate it.
>
>>Hmm. Deja didn't support it either, did it? If Google returns a bunch
>>of articles with an X-No-Archive header from Deja's database, then
>>Deja archived them after all..
>
>That's what was bothering me. Are y'all sure that Deja's DB is actually in use
>yet?
>
>It's X-No-Archive, after all, not X-No-Display.
>
>And apparently they didn't really nuke articles when asked, either, they
>just hid them.
Someone mentioned elsewhere in this thread that it's likely that the current
interface is to Google's own archive of usenet posts, and they haven't
got round to incorporating the Deja archive yet - when they do so, they'll
obviously get rid of the nuked articles...
Paul Bolchover
Peter da Silva
Christopher Jahn <xj...@netscape.net> wrote:
>Having said that, I did force RemarQ to filter out my posts when
>they started ad-linking. But I made THEM figure it out; I was
>specifically denying them the right to link my words to product
>endorsements; I was not interested in getting "off-record".
>
>Of course, they didn't do it until I billed them; then they
>dropped me right off their servers.
Did you do the same thing to Altavista and everyone else who put
ads on search results?
Dave Korn
>In news.groups, Ron Natalie <r...@spamcop.net> writes:
>
>> It's been proposed. But it makes no difference. DEJA knew what it
>> meant and supported it. GOOGLE knows what it means, but choose to
>> violate it.
>
>You're attributing to malice what may well be adequately explained by
>immediately post-acquisition chaos.
>Assuming that they were even aware of it as an issue; who knows what
>information they got from Deja.
Interesting point. If they do archive the XNA posts, but filter them out
from the search interface, that probably puts them in the clear in terms of
copyright, since they aren't republishing them. But if they claim to truly
respect XNA, those posts shouldn't have been entered into their database in
the first place.
>I'd recommend not getting too upset about anything until after a month or
>so to let things settle down.
Wise words, as ever. After all, it's not Google's fault that Deja filled
up the database with stuff that shouldn't have been there, and presumably
they could get it all removed and rebuild the indexes, but it's bound to
take some time.
DaveK
--
They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Copernicus. They laughed at
Columbus. But remember, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Ron Natalie
Martijn van Buul wrote:
>
> It occurred to me that Ron Natalie wrote in news.software.readers:
>
> [ X-No-Archive ]
>
> > It's been proposed. But it makes no difference. DEJA knew what it meant
> > and supported it. GOOGLE knows what it means, but choose to violate it.
>
> Hmm. Deja didn't support it either, did it? If Google returns a bunch
> of articles with an X-No-Archive header from Deja's database, then
> Deja archived them after all..
>
No, the stuff at GOOGLE now is not the contents of the DEJA archives, but
something they seem to have collected on thier own.
Jay Denebeim
Dave Korn <no....@my.mailbox.invalid> wrote:
>But if they claim to truly respect XNA, those posts shouldn't have
>been entered into their database in the first place.
Given that xna was made up by deja in the first place I can't see how
you can expect google to do more than deja did. Deja always stored
everything and only returned the ones not xnaed.
Russ Allbery
> Interesting point. If they do archive the XNA posts, but filter them
> out from the search interface, that probably puts them in the clear in
> terms of copyright, since they aren't republishing them. But if they
> claim to truly respect XNA, those posts shouldn't have been entered into
> their database in the first place.
However, Deja always did the former and not the latter, or at least that's
what I've heard from multiple sources for quite some time.
Damian
<96b7n5$uja$1...@citadel.in.taronga.com>:
>Did you do the same thing to Altavista and everyone else who put
>ads on search results?
Altavista presents the ads separately, as banners. Nothing wrong with
that. What was wrong about what Deja did was link words you had written
in your post to external sites, making it seem as though you had included
those links in your post. It was deceptive and unethical. I have no
problem with Deja's archive, but I have problems with them altering
posts.
Charles Lindsey
>Any header that starts with "X-" is experimental. Why should they
>honour an experimental header?
The upcoming revision of RFC 1036 will make such a header official (But it
will be "Archive: no" rather than X-No-Archive: yes).
>Yes, I am asking in order to start a debate. My view (repeat, *my* view
>- not the governent's) has always been that any posts made to a public
>forum might end up saved off by *someone* and used against the poster in
>the future, so there's really no point in putting faith in a header that
>isn't defined in the RFCs.
There can be no legal compulsion to observe the header. Deja only honoured
it because people lent on them to do so. That established the precedent,
and I think most players now claim to honour it.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Email: c...@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Voice/Fax: +44 161 436 6131 Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
Rich Lafferty
piranha <pir...@gooroos.com> wrote:
>
> leaving the deja engine in place until they've migrated would've
> been better to begin with.
I've seen this suggestion in a lot of places. Google didn't buy
*hardware* from Deja, though, and certainly didn't buy administrative
staff; I can't imagine any way in which Unix-based Google could have
run Deja's old NT-based front end without taking a considerable loss,
not to mention significant training and migration problems.
-Rich
--
Rich Lafferty ----------------------------------------
Nocturnal Aviation Division, IITS Computing Services
Concordia University, Montreal, QC
ri...@bofh.concordia.ca -------------------------------
Dave Korn
>In article <vJ9i6.159$yi4.1...@newsr1.u-net.net>,
>Dave Korn <no....@my.mailbox.invalid> wrote:
>
>>But if they claim to truly respect XNA, those posts shouldn't have
>>been entered into their database in the first place.
>
>Given that xna was made up by deja in the first place I can't see how
>you can expect google to do more than deja did.
Hi Jay,
Not quite sure how you read that into my words, particularly the bit where
I said
>>After all, it's not Google's fault that Deja filled
>>up the database with stuff that shouldn't have been there
which should have made it clear it was Deja's behaviour I was objecting to,
and then you say
> Deja always stored
>everything and only returned the ones not xnaed.
which was kind of the point that I was making, in the sentence
>>If they do archive the XNA posts, but filter them out
>>from the search interface
So really the only comment I can add at this point is that I should have
perhaps said
"But if they claim to truly respect XNA, and to respect the spirit of XNA
rather than merely the letter of the law..."
Is that clearer? That I feel that they should have actually not archived
XNA posts, and that XNA is a misnomer if what it meant (to the people who
invented it) was actually "Do archive but don't republish".
Dave Korn
[snip]
> Deja's old NT-based front end
So that's why it was so slow and clunky.
Bert Hyman
>
>I'm not. What a bunch of megloamaical bastards. They're not even
They say that they do.
From http://groups.google.com/googlegroups/help.html:
We are sympathetic to those who would like for their previous
Usenet postings to no longer show up on Google Groups. Google
supports the 'X-No-archive: yes' header, and we will not
archive any newly posted articles that contain this text in
the header.
I don't know what they mean by "newly posted articles" though.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@visi.com
Russ Allbery
> They say that they do.
> From http://groups.google.com/googlegroups/help.html:
> We are sympathetic to those who would like for their previous
> Usenet postings to no longer show up on Google Groups. Google
> supports the 'X-No-archive: yes' header, and we will not
> archive any newly posted articles that contain this text in
> the header.
> I don't know what they mean by "newly posted articles" though.
My guess: It means that they're honoring it for all newly received
messages, but they haven't had a chance to clean their old database yet.
John David Galt
> Jay Denebeim wrote:
>> Unfortunately the display that comes back is just like out of a search
>> engine.
>>
>> IOW it's not ready for prime time, although I'm glad google bought
>> them.
>
> I'm not. What a bunch of megloamaical bastards. They're not even
> honoring X-No-Archive. You get 157,000 hits if you search for on
> x-no-archive.
How many of those are posts by ignorant posters who put
"X-No-Archive: yes" in the message body rather than the headers?
That shouldn't work.
tayllor
available to search past messages as it once was.
I am being asked by a few fellow goofs on a local newsgroup to produce any
posts from this one user on winnipeg.general from 1994 to 1999
approximately and can not.
I simply said that yes, this professor did swear in his posts mutliple times
(hundreds) of times in his thousands of posts over the few years of posting
on "wpg.general" and I can't seem to get messages past the year 2000 on what
was dejanews.com
All I want to do is post a handful of posts back onto winnipeg.general to
show were he used many of the words George Carline said you can't say on the
radio :)
I don't have any problem with him saying these things now, but at the time 6
years ago, i found it unusual and not acceptable to have these words come
out of a professor and from a free account aimed at me and others.
Thanks if you can help me dig up old posts from 1994- 1999 on Norm.
****
Jonathan Grobe wrote in message ...
>[Any comment on this press release?]
>
>Google Acquires Usenet Discussion Service and Significant Assets from
>Deja.com
>
> Award-Winning Search Engine Launches Beta Version of Usenet Newsgroup
> Search
>
> MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. - February 12, 2001 - Google Inc. today
> announced that is has acquired Deja.com's Usenet Discussion Service.
> This acquisition provides Google with Deja's entire Usenet archive
> (dating back to 1995), software, domain names including deja.com and
> dejanews.com, company trademarks, and other intellectual property.
> Financial terms of this transaction were not released.
>
> Available now at http://groups.google.com, this powerful new Usenet
> search feature enables Google users to access the wealth of
> information contained in more than six months of Usenet newsgroup
> postings and message threads. Once the full Deja Usenet archive is
> added, users will be able to search and browse more than 500 million
> archived messages with the speed and efficiency of a Google search. In
> addition to expanding the amount of searchable data, Google will soon
> provide improved browsing capabilities and newsgroup posting.
>
> "We welcome Deja's loyal users into the growing community of Google
> users worldwide," said Larry Page, Google CEO and co-founder. "With
> more than 500 million individual messages and growing fast, Usenet and
> its thriving community is one of the most active and valuable
> information sources on the Internet."
>
> "The acquisition of Deja's significant assets will enable Google to
> offer an important new source of information to both Deja and Google
> users," said Omid Kordestani, Google's vice president of business
> development and sales. "We will continue to build and acquire the
> necessary technologies to provide the best search experience to
> millions of Google users worldwide."
>
> The award-winning Google search engine serves 70 million searches per
> day, with approximately half of these searches performed on the
> company's homepage at http://www.google.com. Google offers a wide
> variety of custom search service products and currently licenses its
> search technology to more than 120 companies in 30 countries.
>
> About Google Inc.
> With the largest index of websites available on the World Wide Web and
> the industry's most advanced search technology, Google Inc. delivers
> the fastest and easiest way to find relevant information on the
> Internet. Google's technological innovations have earned the company
> numerous industry awards and citations, including two Webby Awards;
> WIRED magazine's Reader Raves Award; Best Internet Innovation and
> Technical Excellence Award from PC Magazine; Best Search Engine on the
> Internet from Yahoo! Internet Life; Top Ten Best Cybertech from TIME
> magazine; and Editor's Pick from CNET. A growing number of companies
> worldwide, including Yahoo!, AOL/Netscape, and Cisco Systems, rely on
> Google to power search on their websites. A privately held company
> based in Mountain View, Calif., Google's investors include Kleiner
> Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital. More information about
> Google can be found on the Google site at http://www.google.com.
>
> ###
>
> Google is a trademark of Google Inc. All other company and product
> names may be trademarks of the respective companies with which they
> are associated.
>
> Google Contacts:
> David Krane
> 650-930-3596
> dkr...@google.com Cindy McCaffrey
> (650) 930-3524
> ci...@google.com
>
>--
>Jonathan Grobe
>
Jon Skeet
> How many of those are posts by ignorant posters who put
> "X-No-Archive: yes" in the message body rather than the headers?
> That shouldn't work.
I believe Deja (who introduced it in the first place, according to
another post I read) decided to notice it as the first line of the post,
to enable those whose newsreaders don't allow header changing/adding to
still avoid being archived (in theory :)
--
Jon Skeet - sk...@pobox.com
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
Rob Mitchell
<vincen...@vinc17.org> wrote:
> In article <3A885A05...@spamcop.net>,
> Ron Natalie <r...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > Thats a fine view for you to have, but it's not mine and it's not the
> > law. What Google is doing is clearly illegal.
>
> I disagree. BTW, I hope you won't sue me because I quoted a part of
> your article. :)
And caused it to be re-archived as well. ;-)
Rob
--
Andrew Brunner: "What happened to Boston???"
Alan Krueger: "Last I heard, it's where it's
always been." - 6-21-00.
Rob Mitchell
<r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> In news.groups, Dave Korn <no....@my.mailbox.invalid> writes:
>
> > Interesting point. If they do archive the XNA posts, but filter them
> > out from the search interface, that probably puts them in the clear in
> > terms of copyright, since they aren't republishing them. But if they
> > claim to truly respect XNA, those posts shouldn't have been entered into
> > their database in the first place.
>
> However, Deja always did the former and not the latter, or at least that's
> what I've heard from multiple sources for quite some time.
Hmmm, I've never seen the slightest solid documentation that xna posts
were ever kept on any of Deja's servers at any time.
Biil Palmer
> > > Interesting point. If they do archive the XNA posts, but filter them
> > > out from the search interface, that probably puts them in the clear in
> > > terms of copyright, since they aren't republishing them. But if they
> > > claim to truly respect XNA, those posts shouldn't have been entered into
> > > their database in the first place.
> >
> > However, Deja always did the former and not the latter, or at least that's
> > what I've heard from multiple sources for quite some time.
>
> Hmmm, I've never seen the slightest solid documentation that xna posts
> were ever kept on any of Deja's servers at any time.
You must not have been a paying customer. The free archives are one thing,
the complete archives require an account. Usenet savvy employment agencies
typically sign up for the deluxe accounts.
Matthew L. Bruce
> Thank you for posting this press release that dejanews is no longer
> available to search past messages as it once was.
>
> I am being asked by a few fellow goofs on a local newsgroup to produce any
> posts from this one user on winnipeg.general from 1994 to 1999
> approximately and can not.
Are you a stalker?
> I simply said that yes, this professor did swear in his posts mutliple times
> (hundreds) of times in his thousands of posts over the few years of posting
> on "wpg.general" and I can't seem to get messages past the year 2000 on what
> was dejanews.com
Yes, you are a stalker.
> All I want to do is post a handful of posts back onto winnipeg.general to
> show were he used many of the words George Carline said you can't say on the
> radio :)
That's "Carlin", dickhead.
> I don't have any problem with him saying these things now, but at the time 6
> years ago, i found it unusual and not acceptable to have these words come
> out of a professor and from a free account aimed at me and others.
>
> Thanks if you can help me dig up old posts from 1994- 1999 on Norm.
You seem to be the type to start a new group, soc.support.stalking,
to help enable yourself and other stalkers to fuck with people.
When will you submit the RFD?
Christopher Jahn
>In article <Xns9046EBB...@24.129.0.130>,
>Christopher Jahn <xj...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>Having said that, I did force RemarQ to filter out my posts
>>when they started ad-linking. But I made THEM figure it
>>out; I was specifically denying them the right to link my
>>words to product endorsements; I was not interested in
>>getting "off-record".
>>
>>Of course, they didn't do it until I billed them; then they
>>dropped me right off their servers.
>
>Did you do the same thing to Altavista and everyone else who
>put ads on search results?
>
Altavista has not done "ad-linking"; taking words in my post and
turning them into hyperlinks that lead to vendors. I have no
problem with people having banners on a site, expecially one
that provides a service.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
My favorite weapon is the look in your eyes
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
piranha
<slrn98ita...@bofh.concordia.ca>:
> In news.groups,
> piranha <pir...@gooroos.com> wrote:
> >
> > leaving the deja engine in place until they've migrated would've
> > been better to begin with.
>
> I've seen this suggestion in a lot of places. Google didn't buy
> *hardware* from Deja, though, and certainly didn't buy administrative
> staff; I can't imagine any way in which Unix-based Google could have
> run Deja's old NT-based front end without taking a considerable loss,
> not to mention significant training and migration problems.
yes, doing it that way wouldn't make sense. i guess i am always
hoping for some transition period where the old guys keep the
old system up while the new guys get ready.
but since i know nothing about the intricacies behind this deal, i
was just shooting off my mouth wishfully.
NT-based, eh? that explains a lot.
--
-piranha
PeterD
<66lj8tk0pd8otpmme...@4ax.com>...
>tayllor wrote:
>
>> Thank you for posting this press release that dejanews is no longer
>> available to search past messages as it once was.
>>
>> I am being asked by a few fellow goofs on a local newsgroup to
produce any
>> posts from this one user on winnipeg.general from 1994 to 1999
>> approximately and can not.
>
>Are you a stalker?
WoW! Here's a person who's never Don, never had a chat with him, doesn't
know him from Adam.
And yet after only five lines of text he sees DOn for what he is.
And no offence to Matthew, but I dont' think it was a particularly
clever insight that caused you to come the the conclusion. :-)
Now why is it, Don, that a total stranger can spot you for a stalker but
you persist in claiming you're not?
I mean, when you threatened to call my family at 4 in the morning,
you're not a stalker.
When you harrass and phone the employer of the person you found
disagreeing with you, you're not a stalker.
Come on, Don, you really do walk like a duck! <lol>
---------
Peter D
Delores Wollmann
"Obviously"?!?
Rob Mitchell
<wil...@netscum.net> wrote:
Erm, ok. I used Deja continuously since October '98, & still have never
seen any evidence that any "pay" service of Deja archived XNA posts.
Dave Korn
any
>> posts from this one user on winnipeg.general from 1994 to 1999
>> approximately and can not.
>
>Are you a stalker?
>
>> I simply said that yes, this professor did swear in his posts mutliple
times
>> (hundreds) of times in his thousands of posts over the few years of
posting
>> on "wpg.general" and I can't seem to get messages past the year 2000 on
what
>> was dejanews.com
>
>Yes, you are a stalker.
>
>> All I want to do is post a handful of posts back onto winnipeg.general to
>> show were he used many of the words George Carline said you can't say on
the
>> radio :)
>
>That's "Carlin", dickhead.
As in "Greagoir"?
Claude Kalid
or utilized the "X-no-archive: yes" feature. The only thing they did was
see to it that they would not show up in searches or author profiles.
The articles remained in their database, but were simply not indexed in
any meaningful way.
[This is based on a one-to-one conversation with someone at Deja about 2
years ago]
Regards,
CK
Martijn van Buul wrote:
>
> It occurred to me that Ron Natalie wrote in news.software.readers:
>
> [ X-No-Archive ]
>
> > It's been proposed. But it makes no difference. DEJA knew what it meant
> > and supported it. GOOGLE knows what it means, but choose to violate it.
>
> Hmm. Deja didn't support it either, did it? If Google returns a bunch
> of articles with an X-No-Archive header from Deja's database, then
> Deja archived them after all..
>
> --
> Martijn van Buul - Pi...@dohd.org - http://www.stack.nl/~martijnb/
> Geek code: G-- - Visit OuterSpace: mud.stack.nl 3333
> Kees J. Bot: The sum of CPU power and user brain power is a constant.
Sylvan Butler
>Erm, ok. I used Deja continuously since October '98, & still have never
>seen any evidence that any "pay" service of Deja archived XNA posts.
Did you ever read an XNA post on deja? I have read many. I never
noticed the search turning them up, but just reading current posts in a
group did. Ergo, the posts must have been on deja's server for some
period of time.
sdb
--
| Sylvan Butler | Not speaking for Hewlett-Packard | sbutler-boi.hp.com |
| Watch out for my e-mail address. Thank UCE. #### change ^ to @ #### |
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. --Benjamin Franklin, 1759
"Don't Tread On Me!"
piranha
> >It occurred to me that Ron Natalie wrote in news.software.readers:
> >> and supported it. GOOGLE knows what it means, but choose to violate it.
>
> >Hmm. Deja didn't support it either, did it? If Google returns a bunch
> >of articles with an X-No-Archive header from Deja's database, then
> >Deja archived them after all..
>
> yet?
no. in fact google says so. it's only their own archives at this
time, which go back to august 2000.
> And apparently they didn't really nuke articles when asked, either, they
> just hid them.
that is what i've been led to understand, but i have not actually
ever heard this from somebody working at deja, so it might just be
a myth.
--
-piranha
piranha
>
> The upcoming revision of RFC 1036 will make such a header official (But it
> will be "Archive: no" rather than X-No-Archive: yes).
i thank the working group for their good sense. the x-no-archive
header is an abomination.
--
-piranha
Rich Lafferty
ENTIRELY SPECULATION:
Deja was an archive, but they were also a free newsreading
service. It'd make perfect sense to me that those that used it as a
newsreader would see X-N0-Archive articles, while those using it as an
archive would not.
Rob Mitchell
<slrn98lbve.h23.Z...@hpb13799Z.Zboi.hpZ.com.invalid>,
Znospam+...@hpb13799Z.Zboi.hpZ.com.invalid (Sylvan Butler) wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 06:34:23 -0600, Rob Mitchell
<sorbus...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >Erm, ok. I used Deja continuously since October '98, & still have never
> >seen any evidence that any "pay" service of Deja archived XNA posts.
>
> Did you ever read an XNA post on deja? I have read many. I never
> noticed the search turning them up, but just reading current posts in a
> group did. Ergo, the posts must have been on deja's server for some
> period of time.
Perhaps so, just like on an average news-server. But I don't think they
stayed for any great length of time, no more than a week or 2 at the most.
But I don't think what you're talking about was still in existence during
the last 6 months or so of Deja, if not longer. I recall noticing a
number of times beginning about last summer that XNA articles that would
appear on my newsreader on an NNTP host did not appear even on Deja's
newsgroup page of current articles. Deja would instead break the thread
at that point, & would start a separate thread with the first reply to the
XNA article, which itself never appeared.
Biil Palmer
> In article
> <slrn98lbve.h23.Z...@hpb13799Z.Zboi.hpZ.com.invalid>,
> Znospam+...@hpb13799Z.Zboi.hpZ.com.invalid (Sylvan Butler) wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 06:34:23 -0600, Rob Mitchell
> <sorbus...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >Erm, ok. I used Deja continuously since October '98, & still have never
> > >seen any evidence that any "pay" service of Deja archived XNA posts.
> >
> > Did you ever read an XNA post on deja? I have read many. I never
> > noticed the search turning them up, but just reading current posts in a
> > group did. Ergo, the posts must have been on deja's server for some
> > period of time.
>
> Perhaps so, just like on an average news-server. But I don't think they
> stayed for any great length of time, no more than a week or 2 at the most.
You must have been accessing using search mode or free news reader mode.
The paying customers had no such restrictions.
J.B. Nicholson-Owens
in but I don't know which one.]
Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
> And apparently they didn't really nuke articles when asked, either, they
> just hid them.
This doesn't surprise me as archives of public activity have no reason to
delete the activity. If the article to be 'nuked' was burned on CD, hiding
the article from public view is probably the best that could be done.
I think this all gets back to people who want to do things in a public space
that they don't want recalled for future inspection.
Paul Bolchover replied:
> [...] and [Google hasn't gotten] round to incorporating the Deja archive
> yet - when they do so, they'll obviously get rid of the nuked articles...
That is not obvious at all nor would it be required for them to do so.
Thomas LEMOINE
> Deja was an archive, but they were also a free newsreading
> service. It'd make perfect sense to me that those that used it as a
> newsreader would see X-N0-Archive articles, while those using it as an
> archive would not.
I used it as a newsreader for a while, and I didn't see X-No-Archive
articles.
--
Thomas Lemoine
Rob Mitchell
<wil...@netscum.net> wrote:
Ok. Still, the question arises: even using the pay service, were the XNA
articles still viewable, say, a year or more after they were posted?
Terje Bless
J.B. Nicholson-Owens <j...@forestfield.org> wrote:
>I think this all gets back to people who want to do things in a public space
>that they don't want recalled for future inspection.
Quite possibly, but there are also valid reasons for it. The
RemarQ(sp?)[0] lunacy aside, I feel somewhat uncomfortable with a
comercial entity slapping advertising on my messages. In Deja's case I
overlooked it because they provided a valuable service, but at the end
I was having second thoughts due to the increasingly invasive nature of
the ads. In that sense (well, in every sense IMO, but that's a
different issue ;D), moving to Google is a wast improvement.
Sure, there are plenty of articles I wish I'd never posted. But Deja
only made it easier to access them; it didn't change the fundamental
nature of it. Articles posted are in potentia available to everyone and
in eternity. Deja only made this obvious, they didn't alter the fact
that there exists large semi-private archives of USENET posts.
Anyways, though I expect you are mostly right about what motivates the
XNA fans, you can't really generalize that into claiming _all_
motivations for XNA-functionality are suspect or invalid.
[0] - My memory isn't what it should be. Wasn't it RemarQ that linked
words in the article body to product endorsements as described
somewhere in this thread?
J.B. Nicholson-Owens
important one. The second point is local to this one subissue of
ad-sponsored searching.
Terje Bless wrote:
> [You] can't really generalize that into claiming _all_ motivations for
> XNA-functionality are suspect or invalid.
Yes, true. I want to know more motivations for supporting XNA. Is there an
organized collection of them somewhere (perhaps an essay on why one should
want XNA)? I can't find such a thing.
I don't normally think with such a broad mental brush but I'm having a hard
time accepting that some people want a mutually exclusive thing--the feeling
of temporary access to their publicly posted articles via XNA (which anyone
is allowed to archive).
> [At] the end I was having second thoughts due to the increasingly invasive
> nature of the ads. In that sense [...] moving to Google is a [vast]
> improvement.
I think it's a matter of time until ads come into Google's Usenet searches
like they do with Google's webpage searches.
Aahz Maruch
J.B. Nicholson-Owens <j...@forestfield.org> wrote:
>
>I think it's a matter of time until ads come into Google's Usenet searches
>like they do with Google's webpage searches.
*That* is fine. What is not fine is ads like Remarq/DejaNews, where the
contents get altered.
--
--- Aahz (Copyright 2001 by aa...@pobox.com)
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het <*> http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Why doesn't "Just Say NO" include caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, Prozac,
and Ritalin? --Aahz
J.B. Nicholson-Owens
> What is not fine is ads like Remarq/DejaNews, where the contents get
> altered.
In what manner did they alter the content of articles? I'm only aware of
various presentation reformatting issues (that, yes, could alter the
presentation of some content as to render it incorrectly) but if you're
talking about all articles, I'm curious to know more.
Terje Bless
J.B. Nicholson-Owens <j...@forestfield.org> wrote:
>Terje Bless wrote:
>> [You] can't really generalize that into claiming _all_ motivations for
>> XNA-functionality are suspect or invalid.
>
>Yes, true. I want to know more motivations for supporting XNA. Is there an
>organized collection of them somewhere (perhaps an essay on why one should
>want XNA)? I can't find such a thing.
I very much doubt it exists. If you search on DejaGoogle, when it comes
back online, I'm sure you'll find several flamewars that may contain a
few nuggets inbetween the vitriol, but I'm not aware of any relevant
essays worth the name.
>I don't normally think with such a broad mental brush but I'm having a hard
>time accepting that some people want a mutually exclusive thing--the feeling
>of temporary access to their publicly posted articles via XNA (which anyone
>is allowed to archive).
You are thinking in absolutes here. Because USENET is by design wildly
varying and subject to local policy at each node, it's fundamentally
flawed to make any assumptions as to how articles will be treated.
AFAICT, all arguments against XNA take a more practical perspective;
USENET has traditionally been ephemeral with the exception of arbitrary
private archives kept by "members" of the same group the artcles were
posted to. In this scenario, several arguments come to mind.
One is the issue of Community; it's ok for a _member_ of the community
to save the posts and use them, but for an external -- and _commercial_
no less -- entity to do the same is considered bad form or blatant
exploitation (depending on your tolerance for such things).
Another is that of Privacy. In an Epemeral USENET, you can expect that
your articles vanish, for all _practical_ purposes, after a few days to
a few months. There is a vast difference between an article being
"possibly available on some unknown newsserver somewhere" and "just
search Deja for ``Terje Bless创". While in principle the only
difference is that size of the time variable; in _practice_ it's two
completely different USENETs. It changes both how it's percieved and
how it's used.
Compare these to a scenario IRL. You speak in public -- a bar, say --
with the reasonable expectation that it will not be recorded and
preserved to be used against you in the future. If your boss wasn't
there at the time she'll never know you made fun of her ugly husband.
The Copyright argument is also a valid one. While USENET is largely in
the nature of a public conversation, it should still be afforded some
protection. Deja was in effect selling your contributions. While you
might be willing to share you experience for free with Joe Blow, you
probably would charge GiantCorp Inc. for the same service. When they
grab your response to Joe (sneak a microphone under the table) they are
in a very real sense stealing from you. Maybe not from a legal
standpoint (IANAL), but from the ethical POV.
I'm sure there are more, but I can't really think of any right now that
aren't derivate of the above. In any case, I'm mainly nitpicking. I
expect most proponents of XNA are so mainly to be querulous, but you
can't simply dismiss them because while their suspected motives are
"invalid", there does exist "valid" motives for it.
Even if I have a few scruples about Deja-like services, I tend to shurg
it off because I see them as inavoidable considering the nature of
USENET and because Deja at least prvided a valuable service to the
USENET community. I wouldn't use XNA for my own sake, but I might it's
moral equivalent to spite a similar service that pissed me off. :-)
>I think it's a matter of time until ads come into Google's Usenet
>searches like they do with Google's webpage searches.
Read up on Google's policy on advertizing. If that isn't the most
impressive thing you've read you're plain impossible to please. :-)
Anyways, John replied to your other question so I won't. :-)
Jay Denebeim
J.B. Nicholson-Owens <j...@forestfield.org> wrote:
>In what manner did they alter the content of articles? I'm only aware of
>various presentation reformatting issues (that, yes, could alter the
>presentation of some content as to render it incorrectly) but if you're
>talking about all articles, I'm curious to know more.
They put hyperlinks from words in your text. For instance, say you
used the word 'toy' they would change that to a hyperlink pointing to
say adam&eve.com. IOW they made it look like *YOU* put the hyperlink
in pointing to some website. It's like those geico commercials on the
radio where they force someone to say something they twist into an
endorsement.
This is so slimy I'm amazed that anyone above the corporate morality
level of network solutions would even try it. Although I suppose in
both cases it was desperation talking. (remarq did it right before
they died as well)
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.org *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.org *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.org *
Dave Korn
>This is so slimy I'm amazed that anyone above the corporate morality
>level of network solutions would even try it.
1st. law of Corporate Buoyancy: The slime always floats to the top.
Matthew Malthouse
} [Any comment on this press release?]
Yeah, it's BI must be huge by now.
Matthew
--
As of next Thursday, UNIX will be flushed in favor of TOPS-10.
Please update your programs.
Matthew Malthouse
} In article <slrn98i3f4.kgj.pino+...@mud.stack.nl>,
} Martijn van Buul <pino+news_sof...@dohd.org> wrote:
} >It occurred to me that Ron Natalie wrote in news.software.readers:
} >> It's been proposed. But it makes no difference. DEJA knew what it meant
} >> and supported it. GOOGLE knows what it means, but choose to violate it.
}
} >Hmm. Deja didn't support it either, did it? If Google returns a bunch
} >of articles with an X-No-Archive header from Deja's database, then
} >Deja archived them after all..
}
} That's what was bothering me. Are y'all sure that Deja's DB is actually in use
} yet?
}
}
} just hid them.
Interesting.
So potentially the ex-Deja databases are the nearest thing we'll every
have to a complete archive of usenet.
And archivists tend to be completists, cosidering an incomplete archive
to be oxymoronic. ;-)
Not displaying satisfies the intent of X-No-Archive while permitting
publication after copyright expires. I wonder what the nearest usenet
analogue will look like in 70+ years time?
Matthew
--
There is no delight the equal of dread. As long as it is somebody else's.
- Clive Barker
http://www.calmeilles.co.uk/
Arthur L. Rubin
> The upcoming revision of RFC 1036 will make such a header official (But it
> will be "Archive: no" rather than X-No-Archive: yes).
Where can son-of-RFC 1036 be located?
--
Arthur L. Rubin 216-...@mcimail.com
Russ Allbery
> Charles Lindsey wrote:
>> The upcoming revision of RFC 1036 will make such a header official (But
>> it will be "Archive: no" rather than X-No-Archive: yes).
> Where can son-of-RFC 1036 be located?
<http://www.landfield.com/usefor/> has the latest bits to have been made
public; I think there are some other pending changes that haven't made it
onto that site yet.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Biil Palmer
[repost due to forged cancel from news.cetis.hvu.nl
Message-ID: <bofh-cancel.tbeu8t8aqnf...@4ax.com>
Reply-To: pe...@taronga.com]
This is an outrage. taronga.com should be UDP'd.
[repost due to forged cancel from news.cetis.hvu.nl
Message-ID: <bofh-cancel.mpbu8tsmr0p...@4ax.com>
Reply-To: pe...@taronga.com]
[repost due to forged cancel from news.cetis.hvu.nl
Forged Message-ID: <bofh-cancel.gg9u8tkb49a...@4ax.com>]
[repost due to forged cancel from news.cetis.hvu.nl
Forged Message-ID: <bofh-cancel.7q3u8t0hfne...@4ax.com>]
[repost due to forged cancel from news.cetis.hvu.nl
Forged Message-ID: <bofh-cancel.li1p8tkn25k...@4ax.com>]
Peter da Silva wrote:
> I wouldn't go that far, but I do regard posting with an invalid email address
> as being antisocial.
Then post in comp.org.cauce, a group created by trolls who wanted
to see you put your posts where your mouth is.
>I'm not saying that it's *wrong*, just that it reduces
> the ability of people to reply in an appropriate fashion (for example, when
> someone posts "How do I reset my Palm Pilot" or any other frequently asked
> question it is more appropriate to reply in email), and thus adds in some
> small way to the amount of noise on Usenet.
So you prefer to send unsolicited email, why am I not surprised?
Arthur L. Rubin
> Except ithad this nasty habit of being broken. It didn't find everything
> that matched the query, and it found lots of stuff that didn't match the
> query. I've yet to see Google do that - the worst is when a Web page has
> changed in the mean time (but Google still shows the old version, of
> course), something that's not likely to happen with Usenet!
Superceeds:
Dave Korn
>Another taronga.com induced forgery.
>
>[repost due to forged cancel from news.cetis.hvu.nl
>Message-ID: <bofh-cancel.tbeu8t8aqnf...@4ax.com>
>Reply-To: pe...@taronga.com]
>
>This is an outrage. taronga.com should be UDP'd.
You were crossposting to a moderated hierarchy.
HTH HAND
Biil Palmer
> pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>
> (Snips)
> You think it's mildly anti-social to have a non-repliable address; I
> think it's mildly anti-social to want to email everyone as freely as
> you and I might email each other.
*Mildly*?!?? I consider it highly anti-social for a pedophile such
as Peter duh Silva <spit> to send me email. I'd sue.
Biil Palmer
> In news.groups, Jay Denebeim <dene...@deepthot.org> writes:
> > Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> >> Enforcing a valid address, regardless of one's opinion on the utility
> >> of this, is beyond the scope of the article format standard. It can't
> >> be done within the news protocol.
>
> > Sure it can,
>
> No, it can't. You cannot confirm the validity of a From header within the
> news protocol.
>
> > It's easy for any site to guarantee that any message coming from it has
> > a valid from: line.
>
> Whether it's easy or not easy, it can't be done within the news protocol.
> It's a statement about *e-mail*, which is clearly and unequivocably
> outside the scope of the standard. The *most* you can even *try* to say
> is some indication of "ownership"; validity is a complete non-starter.
Then let's moderate the group and keep trolls like Jay Denebeim out.
Csaba Raduly
2001 wrote <3A8853B8...@spamcop.net>:
>
>
>Jay Denebeim wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately the display that comes back is just like out of a
>> search engine.
>>
>> IOW it's not ready for prime time, although I'm glad google bought
>> them.
>
>I'm not. What a bunch of megloamaical bastards. They're not even
>honoring X-No-Archive. You get 157,000 hits if you search for on
>x-no-archive.
Are you sure it isn't the Outlook-Express sillyness, which causes
X-No-Archive: Yes
to appear as the first line of the body (I've seen plenty of these) ?
--
Csaba Raduly, Software Developer , Sophos Anti-Virus
email:csaba....@sophos.com http://www.sophos.com/
US Support +1 888 SOPHOS 9 UK Support +44 1235 559933
In case of water landing, YOU may be used as a flotation device!
Moses
On Tuesday, February 13, 2001 3:18:06 AM UTC+8, Jonathan Grobe wrote:
> [Any comment on this press release?]
>
> Google Acquires Usenet Discussion Service and Significant Assets from
> Deja.com
>
> Award-Winning Search Engine Launches Beta Version of Usenet Newsgroup
> Search
>
> MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. - February 12, 2001 - Google Inc. today
> announced that is has acquired Deja.com's Usenet Discussion Service.
> This acquisition provides Google with Deja's entire Usenet archive
> (dating back to 1995), software, domain names including deja.com and
> dejanews.com, company trademarks, and other intellectual property.
> Financial terms of this transaction were not released.
>
> Available now at http://groups.google.com, this powerful new Usenet
> search feature enables Google users to access the wealth of
> information contained in more than six months of Usenet newsgroup
> postings and message threads. Once the full Deja Usenet archive is
> added, users will be able to search and browse more than 500 million
> archived messages with the speed and efficiency of a Google search. In
> addition to expanding the amount of searchable data, Google will soon
> provide improved browsing capabilities and newsgroup posting.
>
> "We welcome Deja's loyal users into the growing community of Google
> users worldwide," said Larry Page, Google CEO and co-founder. "With
> more than 500 million individual messages and growing fast, Usenet and
> its thriving community is one of the most active and valuable
> information sources on the Internet."
>
> "The acquisition of Deja's significant assets will enable Google to
> offer an important new source of information to both Deja and Google
> users," said Omid Kordestani, Google's vice president of business
> development and sales. "We will continue to build and acquire the
> necessary technologies to provide the best search experience to
> millions of Google users worldwide."
>
> The award-winning Google search engine serves 70 million searches per
> day, with approximately half of these searches performed on the
> company's homepage at http://www.google.com. Google offers a wide
> variety of custom search service products and currently licenses its
> search technology to more than 120 companies in 30 countries.
>
> About Google Inc.
> With the largest index of websites available on the World Wide Web and
> the industry's most advanced search technology, Google Inc. delivers
> the fastest and easiest way to find relevant information on the
> Internet. Google's technological innovations have earned the company
> numerous industry awards and citations, including two Webby Awards;
> WIRED magazine's Reader Raves Award; Best Internet Innovation and
> Technical Excellence Award from PC Magazine; Best Search Engine on the
> Internet from Yahoo! Internet Life; Top Ten Best Cybertech from TIME
> magazine; and Editor's Pick from CNET. A growing number of companies
> worldwide, including Yahoo!, AOL/Netscape, and Cisco Systems, rely on
> Google to power search on their websites. A privately held company
> based in Mountain View, Calif., Google's investors include Kleiner
> Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital. More information about
> Google can be found on the Google site at http://www.google.com.
>
> ###
>
> Google is a trademark of Google Inc. All other company and product
> names may be trademarks of the respective companies with which they
> are associated.
>
> Google Contacts:
> David Krane
> 650-930-3596
> dkr...@google.com Cindy McCaffrey
> (650) 930-3524
> ci...@google.com
>
> --
> Jonathan Grobe
D. Stussy
news:d8c530ac-3582-4311...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com...
> This is the most valuable acquirement ever made by Google.
"Acquirement"? Try speaking English. The word you want is acquisition.
Mike
> This is the most valuable acquirement ever made by Google.
>
>
> On Tuesday, February 13, 2001 3:18:06 AM UTC+8, Jonathan Grobe wrote:
>> [Any comment on this press release?]
>>
Fujikawa Yamamoto
news:d8c530ac-3582-4311...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.
com:
> This is the most valuable acquirement ever made by Google.
>
†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††
Whereupon the braintrust of google, having purloined the golden calf,
and being good Christian Usenet Admins, promptly followed the lead of
Moses whereby he dashed the 10 Commandments to bits, by mutilating this
treasure into an unfriendly, cumbersome, virtually unsearchable, spam
generating mass of http accessible wreckage. And when it was done,
google looked upon what they had wrought, and called it good.
†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††
austria
Fujikawa Yamamoto <am...@now-flushed.org> wrote:
>
> On 01 Jun 2011, Moses <moses...@gmail.com> posted some
> news:d8c530ac-3582-4311...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.
> com:
>
> > This is the most valuable acquirement ever made by Google.
> >
> †††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††
>
> Whereupon the braintrust of google, having purloined the golden calf,
> and being good Christian Usenet Admins, promptly followed the lead of
> Moses whereby he dashed the 10 Commandments to bits, by mutilating this
> treasure into an unfriendly, cumbersome, virtually unsearchable, spam
> generating mass of http accessible wreckage. And when it was done,
> google looked upon what they had wrought, and called it good.
>
> †††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††
LOL!
Some Guy
> This is the most valuable acquirement ever made by Google.
>
> On Tuesday, February 13, 2001 3:18:06 AM UTC+8, Jonathan Grobe
> wrote:
>
> > [Any comment on this press release?]
> >
> > Google Acquires Usenet Discussion Service and Significant Assets
> > from Deja.com
Aside from the fact that some bone-head (Moses) started a thread by
quoting a 10-year-old press release, I think we can safely say that
acquiring Deja was not a smart move by Google. In the 10 years they've
owned it, they've pushed their database of usenet posts far into the
background.
Once upon a time, when you did a general google search, usenet posts
were included in the results. Now you have to do a few more clicks to
include usenet in your search (and a borken search it is).
It was a no brainer that there was really no way to "montetize" the
usenet database by somehow linking it with advertizing, at least not
when a lot of people were using real NNTP clients (not a browser) to
experience usenet.
That was one of the reasons why google never did configure their usenet
server as a real NNTP server for use by the general public to read and
write posts. Without a graphic UI, there's no way to place advertizing
as part of the usage.
Michael Black
> On June 1, Moses wrote:
>
>> This is the most valuable acquirement ever made by Google.
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 13, 2001 3:18:06 AM UTC+8, Jonathan Grobe
>> wrote:
>>
>>> [Any comment on this press release?]
>>>
>>> Google Acquires Usenet Discussion Service and Significant Assets
>>> from Deja.com
>
> Aside from the fact that some bone-head (Moses) started a thread by
> quoting a 10-year-old press release, I think we can safely say that
> acquiring Deja was not a smart move by Google. In the 10 years they've
> owned it, they've pushed their database of usenet posts far into the
> background.
>
To be fair, it wasn't so much google taking over dejanews as it was
dejanews was about to fail immediately. If google hadn't bought the
archive, where would it be now?
Note that dejanews failed because it couldn't be what it wanted to be.
They went through two or three iterations and still failed. Memory says
they were trying to downplay usenet during some of those changes.
Michael
Tom Potter
"Michael Black" <et...@ncf.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.11...@darkstar.example.net...
Dejanews was far superior to Google Groups,
and hopefully someone will index Usenet posts,
and provide a similar service.
Dejanews failed because they didn't know how to
use advertising to profit from their service.
Google got too greedy,
and most importantly,
as they can profit from Usenet searches,
they didn't want to be prevented from
censoring, banning, and "cooking the books" on searches.
The bottom line is that the worst thing about Google
is not their greed, but their determination to impose
their self-serving agenda upon the world.
As Internet advertising is common today,
a new Usenet search service could insert ads
in the searches they deliver,
and they, like Google, could have advertisers
bid on searches of various newsgroups.
As Usenet users are the most savvy,
and are centers of influence,
if a service gained the respect of the Usenet community
they could begin to displace Google in other areas, as fast as they could
assemble the personnel and infrastructure.
--
Tom Potter
-----------------
http://www.prioritize.biz/
http://voices.yuku.com/forums/66
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com/siteindex.zhtml
http://184.105.237.216/~tompotte/
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
Peter Brooks
>
>
> Aside from the fact that some bone-head (Moses) started a thread by
> quoting a 10-year-old press release, I think we can safely say that
> acquiring Deja was not a smart move by Google. In the 10 years they've
> owned it, they've pushed their database of usenet posts far into the
> background.
>
from google groups since the 25th of June 2011. If you post something
(as I am not) through google groups, it will get onto Usenet. However
you won't see anything later than last Saturday's Usenet articles on
google groups.
I sent a bug report in a couple of days ago, but, of course, no reply.
I've seen no announcement from google about this massive outage -
presumably they're hoping that usenet will just disappear and
everybody will forget about the commitment they made when they took
over dejanews.
Google Guy
full-quoting:
> As Internet advertising is common today, a new Usenet search
> service could insert ads in the searches they deliver,
> and they, like Google, could have advertisers
> bid on searches of various newsgroups.
And those ads would still be blocked by my hosts file.
The problem with usenet is that it's a mine-field of nasty opinions,
personal attacks, foul language and spamvertizements. There's very
little useful information on usenet that caters to the general
web-search query. That's why google removed usenet from their general
"web" search several years ago.
In a similar way, I don't believe that I see a lot of facebook results
(perhaps none?) in the dozen or so google web searches I do every day.
Same with twitter (but there's not a lot of useful info you can pack
into 144 characters that isin't just a link to somewhere else).
And going off topic slightly, I'm puzzled why an organization like
National Geographic (which covers many topics in the humanities, social
and natural sciences, geography, etc) is also absent from the google
search results I do. It's like they have no web-presence at all. Can
anyone explain that?