Google Groups like Deja News?

[Fritz Wuehler]

I think Google is attempting to integrate their groups search with their
regular web search. Searches that show only a few hits in groups, are
lately showing quite a few more hits in the web search, but their groups
are completely FUBAR. About the only thing that still works fine in groups
is the ability of spammers to continue spamming through googlegroups.com
with impunity. Everything else in groups has gone kerplunk.

Maybe they will fix it, maybe they won't. Google is too unreliable at
this point. In fact, their wagon may have broken down for good.

Google took over defunct Deja News some years ago. I wonder who will
take over the billion usenet pages in broken Google Groups?

 

[Andrew Heenan]

"Fritz Wuehler" wrote ...
> Maybe they will fix it, maybe they won't. Google is too unreliable at
> this point. In fact, their wagon may have broken down for good.

And your home planet is ...
--

Andrew
http://www.seo2seo.com/
http://www.sick-site-syndrome.com/
First things first - but not necessarily in that order.

 

[Fritz Wuehler]

I spoke to soon. I ran some more tests on Groups. It's still acting
strange. It seems to flip out when you use more than one search term.
Those Google "wizards" must still be working on it.

"Andrew Heenan" <andrew3@heenan.net> wrote:
>"Fritz Wuehler" wrote ...
>> Maybe they will fix it, maybe they won't. Google is too unreliable at
>> this point. In fact, their wagon may have broken down for good.
>
>And your home planet is ...
>--

 

[Fritz Wuehler]

"Andrew Heenan" <andrew3@heenan.net> wrote:
>"Fritz Wuehler" wrote ...
>> Maybe they will fix it, maybe they won't. Google is too unreliable at
>> this point. In fact, their wagon may have broken down for good.
>
>And your home planet is ...
>--

I deserved that. My bad.

I was about to reply with some search examples, showing that the groups
search engine was broken. But I figured out that I was using the old
syntax, /groups/search?q=, instead of /groups?q=, which does the trick.

They are miracle workers, those search wizards at Google. My only
complaint is that they don't reign in the spammers who abuse their google
groups accounts. I bet 98 percent of all usenet spam has
"googlegroups.com" in the message id.

 

[Andrew Heenan]

"Fritz Wuehler" wrote in message
news:4995d4e80e3bf6dc8bcf7dc2dab3743a@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
> They are miracle workers, those search wizards at Google. My only
> complaint is that they don't reign in the spammers who abuse their google
> groups accounts. I bet 98 percent of all usenet spam has
> "googlegroups.com" in the message id.

I totally agree; I'm amazed at how little Google has done about Usenet
spam - pretty much nothing.

But I think your percentage is waaay too high - google groupers only account
for 97.632%

But there are many simple options that could be added tomorrow;

1. an option to ignore all crossposted threads ;o)
2. killfiling made easier
3. blocking by email address would cut down many cranks who change their
username daily
4. A loss of Google account for persistant spammers
5. A 'click here to report spam' addition to every google groups post - once
enough unique clicks were recieved, the post would be deleted. once a higher
threshhold, the spammer would be taken out and shot. Well, deleted, at
least!

Google are ahead of the pack on dealing with mail abuse (though they still
have miles to go), whu don't they do better of Usenet?


--

Andrew
http://www.seo2seo.com/
http://www.sick-site-syndrome.com/
First things first - but not necessarily in that order.

 

[Roy Schestowitz]

____/ Fritz Wuehler on Friday 03 August 2007 22:09 : \____

> I think Google is attempting to integrate their groups search with their
> regular web search. Searches that show only a few hits in groups, are
> lately showing quite a few more hits in the web search, but their groups
> are completely FUBAR. About the only thing that still works fine in groups
> is the ability of spammers to continue spamming through googlegroups.com
> with impunity. Everything else in groups has gone kerplunk.
>
> Maybe they will fix it, maybe they won't. Google is too unreliable at
> this point. In fact, their wagon may have broken down for good.
>
> Google took over defunct Deja News some years ago. I wonder who will
> take over the billion usenet pages in broken Google Groups?

Some time ago I read about an open source project that is intended to bring
Deja back to life.

--
~~ Best of wishes

Previously-unsurpassed exposure makes carnation-faced men
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Load average (/proc/loadavg): 1.27 1.02 0.93 3/137 27090
http://iuron.com - semantic search engine project initiative

 

[Fritz Wuehler]

"Andrew Heenan" <andrew3@heenan.net> wrote:
>"Fritz Wuehler" wrote in message
>news:4995d4e80e3bf6dc8bcf7dc2dab3743a@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
>> They are miracle workers, those search wizards at Google. My only
>> complaint is that they don't reign in the spammers who abuse their google
>> groups accounts. I bet 98 percent of all usenet spam has
>> "googlegroups.com" in the message id.
>
>I totally agree; I'm amazed at how little Google has done about Usenet
>spam - pretty much nothing.
>
>But I think your percentage is waaay too high - google groupers only account
>for 97.632%
>
>But there are many simple options that could be added tomorrow;
>
>1. an option to ignore all crossposted threads ;o)
>2. killfiling made easier
>3. blocking by email address would cut down many cranks who change their
>username daily
>4. A loss of Google account for persistant spammers
>5. A 'click here to report spam' addition to every google groups post - once
>enough unique clicks were recieved, the post would be deleted. once a higher
>threshhold, the spammer would be taken out and shot. Well, deleted, at
>least!
>
>Google are ahead of the pack on dealing with mail abuse (though they still
>have miles to go), whu don't they do better of Usenet?
>
>
>--

It is a wonderment. I have read in other groups where people who are
sick of gg spam have filtered "*googlegroups.com" by message id, like
a personal udp. I don't know if any news servers are doing that, I hope
they are not, because we are still getting 2.368% (winks) of honest
users of the free Google Groups web to usenet posting service.

From a practical standpoint, I would guess there are millions of
subscribers to Google Groups accounts. I wonder if they are working on
a system that separates frivolous complaints from real commercial spam
complaints, to make it more efficient for Google to respond to them. We
see they are still sorting things out between groups and web search, so
it is possible that they are still trying to sort things out on the
"Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com" front, as well. How many emails
are sent to that address, a quarter million per day?

The curse of success, unmanageably large volume of customers, users,
interested parties.

 

[Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer]

Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>____/ Fritz Wuehler on Friday 03 August 2007 22:09 : \____
>
>> I think Google is attempting to integrate their groups search with their
>> regular web search. Searches that show only a few hits in groups, are
>> lately showing quite a few more hits in the web search, but their groups
>> are completely FUBAR. About the only thing that still works fine in groups
>> is the ability of spammers to continue spamming through googlegroups.com
>> with impunity. Everything else in groups has gone kerplunk.
>>
>> Maybe they will fix it, maybe they won't. Google is too unreliable at
>> this point. In fact, their wagon may have broken down for good.
>>
>> Google took over defunct Deja News some years ago. I wonder who will
>> take over the billion usenet pages in broken Google Groups?
>
>Some time ago I read about an open source project that is intended to bring
>Deja back to life.
>
>--

I'm thinking pun here.

 

[Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer]

"Andrew Heenan" <andrew3@heenan.net> wrote:
>"Fritz Wuehler" wrote in message
>news:4995d4e80e3bf6dc8bcf7dc2dab3743a@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
>> They are miracle workers, those search wizards at Google. My only
>> complaint is that they don't reign in the spammers who abuse their google
>> groups accounts. I bet 98 percent of all usenet spam has
>> "googlegroups.com" in the message id.
>
>I totally agree; I'm amazed at how little Google has done about Usenet
>spam - pretty much nothing.
>
>But I think your percentage is waaay too high - google groupers only account
>for 97.632%
>
>But there are many simple options that could be added tomorrow;
>
>1. an option to ignore all crossposted threads ;o)
>2. killfiling made easier
>3. blocking by email address would cut down many cranks who change their
>username daily
>4. A loss of Google account for persistant spammers
>5. A 'click here to report spam' addition to every google groups post - once
>enough unique clicks were recieved, the post would be deleted. once a higher
>threshhold, the spammer would be taken out and shot. Well, deleted, at
>least!
>
>Google are ahead of the pack on dealing with mail abuse (though they still
>have miles to go), whu don't they do better of Usenet?
>
>
>--

It is a wonderment. I have read in other groups where people who are
sick of gg spam have filtered "*googlegroups.com" by message id, like
a personal udp. I don't know if any news servers are doing that, I hope
they are not, because we are still getting 2.368% (winks) of honest
users of the free Google Groups web to usenet posting service.

From a practical standpoint, I would guess there are millions of
subscribers to Google Groups accounts. I wonder if they are working on
a system that separates frivolous complaints from real commercial spam
complaints, to make it more efficient for Google to respond to them. We
see they are still sorting things out between groups and web search, so
it is possible that they are still trying to sort things out on the
"Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com" front, as well. How many emails
are sent to that address, a quarter million per day?

The curse of success, unmanageably large volume of customers, users,
interested parties.

 

[Michael Yardley]

In Usenet newsgroup (24 hour support"computers") I saw a poster Binky
or some name handle and their www tag had a site that was trying to
block all googly posters, called all googly posters "lamers". Googly
groups are full of kids, retired pensioners with nothing better to do
then site on their computers posting dribble. As more people get
computers and are hooked up to the NET IT will get worse. This is
what I do. I stick to forums (manufacturers man pages) on my topic of
interest and it seems to work out better. Less spam posts and more
quality posts
..
People who use re-mailers are idiots all the sites have sniffers on
and many are run by hackers and security people.

This one is run by the CIA https://zerofreedom.homeip.net/cgi-bin/mixnews-user.cgi
where you posted from they have you IP so you are not so anonymous.

 

[Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer]

Michael Yardley <yardleymj@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>In Usenet newsgroup (24 hour support"computers") I saw a poster Binky
>or some name handle and their www tag had a site that was trying to
>block all googly posters, called all googly posters "lamers". Googly
>groups are full of kids, retired pensioners with nothing better to do
>then site on their computers posting dribble. As more people get
>computers and are hooked up to the NET IT will get worse. This is
>what I do. I stick to forums (manufacturers man pages) on my topic of
>interest and it seems to work out better. Less spam posts and more
>quality posts
>.
>People who use re-mailers are idiots all the sites have sniffers on
>and many are run by hackers and security people.
>
>This one is run by the CIA
>https://zerofreedom.homeip.net/cgi-bin/mixnews-user.cgi
>where you posted from they have you IP so you are not so anonymous.

Then there are the "googly" comedians, unruly amateurs, the schnockered
hecklers who inject incoherent babble into every conversation.