|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.pratchett » [I] Google Groups Does Weird Stuff
| [I] Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #219977] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 05:57 |
|
Looks like Google Groups have decided to make their interface wierder,
e.g. by introducing a rating system for posts, and enabling the user to
mark their favourite threads. It all looks rather ugly, in my opinion,
and I wish they'd attend to more important things.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #219995 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 12:14 |
|
Flesh-eating Dragon wrote:
> Looks like Google Groups have decided to make their interface wierder,
> e.g. by introducing a rating system for posts, and enabling the user to
> mark their favourite threads.
Or marking them for you - I notice a totally new thread I haven't even
read yet has been given four stars.
CCA
|
|
|
| Re: Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #220035 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 22:07 |
|
And what's with the new 'profile' link? I know that anyone could, in
theory, go and search for all my posts across all groups if they wanted
to, but now it's just so... convenient - it's somewhat disturbing.
But don't let me get started on Google Groups - they should never have
changed to 2.0, should have just stuck with the old version. It was
much better.
I've played around with a couple of Windows news readers, but the best
newsreader I ever used was plain old tin. Don't suppose anyone knows
if there's a Windows version? Although I'd need a decent, postable
news server that carries afp anyway, so I'd probably have to stick to
google for now :-(
|
|
|
| Re: Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #220322 ] |
So, 12 Februar 2006 23:38 |
|
Check out Fort=E9 Agent. They've just released v3.2; a free version is
available to get the feel of it, but I recommend paying for the full
version (assuming that you like it of course).
If your local ISP doesn't provide the newsgroups you need, Fort=E9 also
provide a (non-free) newsgroup server feed.
I primarily use Agent for email, but it's designed for newsgroups.
http://www.forteinc.com/main/homepage.php
Bruce Probst
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #220332 ] |
Mo, 13 Februar 2006 01:43 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #221816 ] |
Di, 14 Februar 2006 12:50 |
|
bruce.probst [at] gmail.com wrote:
> Check out Fort=E9 Agent. They've just released v3.2; a free version is
> available to get the feel of it, but I recommend paying for the full
> version (assuming that you like it of course).
I used to use Agent - migrated from OE6 to it.
I've dumped it now in favour of Mozilla Thunderbird and Google Groups.
|
|
|
| Re: Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #221822 ] |
Di, 14 Februar 2006 14:00 |
|
CJ wrote:
> And what's with the new 'profile' link? I know that anyone could, in
> theory, go and search for all my posts across all groups if they wanted
> to, but now it's just so... convenient - it's somewhat disturbing.
I have a profile defined now, in the space that Google has provided.
I'd actually like to make it even easier for ppl to find and track ALL
that I do throughout the entire Internet.
Why not? If I meet someone new, I'd like to be able to give them access
to every scrap of info about me that I have ever CHOSEN to publish
online.
I CHOSE deliberately to publish that information. For a reason. I
WANTED it made public. not just in the little niche I placed the
information.
But, I come across this from some people. Information that they have
willingly published, somehow has strings attached. It's not there for
EVERYONE apparently. It's supposed to be only for some select few who
know where to find it.
But... search engines blow that whole paradigm away.
You can't hide what you freely publish (to the general public). By
definition.
If you don't want info to be known, then you need to go find it and ask
for it to be removed.
> But don't let me get started on Google Groups - they should never have
> changed to 2.0, should have just stuck with the old version. It was
> much better.
The recent improvements have confirmed my decision to shift to
accessing Usenet via Google's web interface.
The fact that I can access the entire Usenet archive is a big part of
that.
Being able to rate people's posts is cool.
> I've played around with a couple of Windows news readers, but the best
> newsreader I ever used was plain old tin. Don't suppose anyone knows
> if there's a Windows version? Although I'd need a decent, postable
> news server that carries afp anyway, so I'd probably have to stick to
> google for now :-(
I'm no longer on dial up. I'm on a Telkom DSL 512K connection since Dec
06 2005.
If I subscribe to a conventional downloadable newsfeed, then i have to
daily suck down ALL the posts from ALL the groups I am subscribed to.
But I only read a few of what is published. Many of the threads hold no
interest for me. So I'd just be wasting my bandwidth allowance
downloading them.
Hopping over to a new group is not quick via conventional feeds. With
Google groups, I can bounce into any group with a click. And I can get
group stats by clicking the About Group link. I get the overall picture
- the level of activity, the threads currently being discussed, how
active the group has been over time and who the major contributors are
(this month and all time).
All I had to do was get used to a different interface. It's not the
same as the email interface. It does take a bit longer to navigate
through a thread, because Google has not improved that yet.
If you want to see only the new posts, each group exposes various RSS
feeds. I haven't tried using them yet. It's something in the back of my
mind to try next. :-)
|
|
|
| Re: Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #221932 ] |
Mi, 15 Februar 2006 10:40 |
|
One thing that I'm struggling with in the new Google Groups is replying
- sometimes it'll quote the text I'm replying to, and sometimes not
(like now). So the quotes below are manual cut&pastes, so I'm sorry if
some of the formatting gets lost ...
Pumba wrote:
>CJ wrote:
>> And what's with the new 'profile' link? I know that anyone could, in
>> theory, go and search for all my posts across all groups if they wanted
>> to, but now it's just so... convenient - it's somewhat disturbing.
>I have a profile defined now, in the space that Google has provided.
>
>I'd actually like to make it even easier for ppl to find and track ALL
>that I do throughout the entire Internet.
>
>Why not? If I meet someone new, I'd like to be able to give them access
>to every scrap of info about me that I have ever CHOSEN to publish
>online.
>
>I CHOSE deliberately to publish that information. For a reason. I
>WANTED it made public. not just in the little niche I placed the
>information.
>
>But, I come across this from some people. Information that they have
>willingly published, somehow has strings attached. It's not there for
>EVERYONE apparently. It's supposed to be only for some select few who
>know where to find it.
>
>But... search engines blow that whole paradigm away.
>
>You can't hide what you freely publish (to the general public). By
>definition.
>
>If you don't want info to be known, then you need to go find it and ask
>for it to be removed.
Well, this has the potential to be a huge topic, and I don't really
want to get into without having the time to think about it properly and
write a meaningful (and probably essay-length) reply. But briefly -
yes, you're right - everything that I've put online is freely
available, and I don't have a problem with that. If I did, I wouldn't
be posting online. And to a certain extent I do compartmentalise the
stuff I've put on the net by using different email addresses for
different purposes - since my afp life is different to my work life
which is different to ... oh, all the other stuff I do on the net. I
don't mind a potential future employer reading my afp posts, but I
wouldn't particularly point him (or her) in that direction. Same as I
don't mind afp people reading my afp posts, but would be slightly
embarrassed if everyone suddenly went way back and re-read all my posts
from my first year at varsity when I first posted to afp. I can't quite
define it, but there is a qualitative difference between "sure,
everything I've ever posted is out there, and if you're interested
enough you can go find it" to "here you go, here's everything I've ever
posted".
<snipping some stuff>
>> I've played around with a couple of Windows news readers, but the best
>> newsreader I ever used was plain old tin. Don't suppose anyone knows
>> if there's a Windows version? Although I'd need a decent, postable
>> news server that carries afp anyway, so I'd probably have to stick to
>> google for now :-(
>I'm no longer on dial up. I'm on a Telkom DSL 512K connection since Dec
>06 2005.
>
>If I subscribe to a conventional downloadable newsfeed, then i have to
>daily suck down ALL the posts from ALL the groups I am subscribed to.
>
>But I only read a few of what is published. Many of the threads hold no
>interest for me. So I'd just be wasting my bandwidth allowance
>downloading them.
I'm on gprs, and pay per MB, so I know what you mean. But with Agent
you can definitely set it to only download messages that you've tagged,
or only when you double-click a message, or something like that.
It's partly why I find reading newsgroups via Agent and similar apps
problematic - either I have to download all messages (and wait ages for
it to download, and worry about how much it's costing me) or I have to
disrupt the flow of reading by downloading each message one at a time.
I'm not denying that google groups has advantages - I'm using it, after
all. But there are interface-related issues that I think they could
have improved, and instead I feel that they've been made worse, if
anything. Obviously it's tricky for them - users clearly have
different preferences about these things, and I would imagine that
groups can have very different usage profiles - afp will be used and
read very differently to, say, the microsoft .NET groups, which are
mainly question and answer type groups, where it doesn't matter if a
post is 2 years old if it answers your question.
|
|
|
| Re: Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #221934 ] |
Mi, 15 Februar 2006 10:58 |
|
CJ wrote:
>One thing that I'm struggling with in the new Google Groups is replying
>- sometimes it'll quote the text I'm replying to, and sometimes not
>(like now).
use the Reply from the header section - it quotes. the Reply at the
bottom does not.
it took me a while to figure that out myself. :-)
> >If you don't want info to be known, then you need to go find it and ask
> >for it to be removed.
> Well, this has the potential to be a huge topic, and I don't really
> want to get into without having the time to think about it properly and
> write a meaningful (and probably essay-length) reply. But briefly -
> yes, you're right - everything that I've put online is freely
> available, and I don't have a problem with that.
i've checked my own name online. some of the stuff that comes up is
false and a result of Usenet baddies making trouble for me.
someone created false profiles on a local gay web site a few years ago
and got calls on my (old) cell # about it. despite requests, the gay
site owner has not taken those profiles down. i'm straight.
you should check your own name out. you might find stuff that u'd
rather not have up there, especially if it contains personal data, such
as physical address, cell number etc.
but... there's another problem too - google's cache. even if u get the
material taken off the source, ppl might still be able to retrieve it
via google's cache.
> Same as I
> don't mind afp people reading my afp posts, but would be slightly
> embarrassed if everyone suddenly went way back and re-read all my posts
> from my first year at varsity when I first posted to afp.
i've posted loads of nonsense into Usenet. much worse than anything u
could have, i imagine. :-)
> I'm not denying that google groups has advantages - I'm using it, after
> all. But there are interface-related issues that I think they could
> have improved, and instead I feel that they've been made worse, if
> anything.
send your feedback to google. they specifically request it.
this interface can be made a whole lot better.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #221962 ] |
Mi, 15 Februar 2006 14:53 |
|
CCA wrote:
> Flesh-eating Dragon wrote:
> > Looks like Google Groups have decided to make their interface wierder,
> > e.g. by introducing a rating system for posts, and enabling the user to
> > mark their favourite threads.
>
> Or marking them for you - I notice a totally new thread I haven't even
> read yet has been given four stars.
The ratings are really annoying, visually, IMO. Moreover, people rate
stupid spammy trolly stuff with one star, thereby drawing attention to
it.
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #221966 ] |
Mi, 15 Februar 2006 15:12 |
|
I wrote:
> The ratings are really annoying, visually, IMO. Moreover, people rate
> stupid spammy trolly stuff with one star, thereby drawing attention to
> it.
Moreover, a rating by a thread merely seems to mean that there is a
post somewhere *in* that thread which has been rated, and there are few
clues if any about *which* post that might be. What it *doesn't* mean
is that the post you will see when you click on the *link* has been
thus rated, which would at least be more logical.
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #221984 ] |
Mi, 15 Februar 2006 17:01 |
|
Flesh-eating Dragon wrote:
> I wrote:
> > The ratings are really annoying, visually, IMO. Moreover, people rate
> > stupid spammy trolly stuff with one star, thereby drawing attention to
> > it.
now, yes, because it's a new feature.
> Moreover, a rating by a thread merely seems to mean that there is a
> post somewhere *in* that thread which has been rated, and there are few
> clues if any about *which* post that might be. What it *doesn't* mean
> is that the post you will see when you click on the *link* has been
> thus rated, which would at least be more logical.
> Adrian.
this post rated with: 1 star. :-)
btw to answer a question higher up this thread, google doesn't rate
posts, we do.
each google account has one vote - you can amend your rating at any
time, it seems. it doesn't appear to get locked in.
the rating that appears in the header is an aggregate rating.
so if you go and rate yourself with a 5, the aggregate will be 3.
do u think we will see ratings wars?
|
|
|
| Re: Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #222008 ] |
Mi, 15 Februar 2006 19:39 |
|
Pumba wrote:
> CJ wrote:
>
>>One thing that I'm struggling with in the new Google Groups is replying
>>- sometimes it'll quote the text I'm replying to, and sometimes not
>>(like now).
>
>
> use the Reply from the header section - it quotes. the Reply at the
> bottom does not.
>
> it took me a while to figure that out myself. :-)
>
>
>>>If you don't want info to be known, then you need to go find it and ask
>>>for it to be removed.
>>
>>Well, this has the potential to be a huge topic, and I don't really
>>want to get into without having the time to think about it properly and
>>write a meaningful (and probably essay-length) reply. But briefly -
>>yes, you're right - everything that I've put online is freely
>>available, and I don't have a problem with that.
>
>
> i've checked my own name online. some of the stuff that comes up is
> false and a result of Usenet baddies making trouble for me.
>
> someone created false profiles on a local gay web site a few years ago
> and got calls on my (old) cell # about it. despite requests, the gay
> site owner has not taken those profiles down. i'm straight.
>
> you should check your own name out. you might find stuff that u'd
> rather not have up there, especially if it contains personal data, such
> as physical address, cell number etc.
>
> but... there's another problem too - google's cache. even if u get the
> material taken off the source, ppl might still be able to retrieve it
> via google's cache.
>
>
>>Same as I
>>don't mind afp people reading my afp posts, but would be slightly
>>embarrassed if everyone suddenly went way back and re-read all my posts
>>from my first year at varsity when I first posted to afp.
>
>
> i've posted loads of nonsense into Usenet. much worse than anything u
> could have, i imagine. :-)
>
>
>>I'm not denying that google groups has advantages - I'm using it, after
>>all. But there are interface-related issues that I think they could
>>have improved, and instead I feel that they've been made worse, if
>>anything.
>
>
> send your feedback to google. they specifically request it.
>
> this interface can be made a whole lot better.
>
Well, not that I want to scare you, but when I Googled I got a lot of
mentiones that you was in this movie... ;-p
Pudde
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #222267 ] |
Fr, 17 Februar 2006 02:33 |
|
Pumba wrote:
> send your feedback to google. they specifically request it.
And you believe them?
Requesting feedback so that people think you're nice guys who are
interested in their customers' wishes, and then ignoring them, is one
of the oldest cons in the book.
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #222269 ] |
Fr, 17 Februar 2006 02:52 |
|
Pumba wrote:
> Being able to rate people's posts is cool.
Only if you can switch them off and not have to see the ratings if you
don't want to.
> If I subscribe to a conventional downloadable newsfeed, then i have to
> daily suck down ALL the posts from ALL the groups I am subscribed to.
Huh? What on earth are you talking about? With a conventional
newsreader, you click on a group to download headers from that group,
and click on a post heading to download that post. You are never
required to download *any* posts other than the ones you specifically
want to read.
I'm not denying that Google Groups has some uses - for getting familiar
with a group you've never posted to before, and for searching the
archives. But these are specialised functions. It's utterly lousy as a
tool for /posting/, and for browsing high-volume groups that you _are_
familiar with.
Don't you find it annoying to have to type the tags back in every time?
Don't you think that being able to keep track of what you've read, what
you haven't, what you want to read again, etc, as you can with a
conventional newsreader, is a *huge* advantage? Google's attempt to
keep track of what posts I have/haven't read is laughable.
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #222290 ] |
Fr, 17 Februar 2006 10:46 |
|
Flesh-eating Dragon <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote:
> Pumba wrote:
>
> > Being able to rate people's posts is cool.
>
> Only if you can switch them off and not have to see the ratings if you
> don't want to.
>
> > If I subscribe to a conventional downloadable newsfeed, then i have to
> > daily suck down ALL the posts from ALL the groups I am subscribed to.
>
> Huh? What on earth are you talking about? With a conventional
> newsreader, you click on a group to download headers from that group,
> and click on a post heading to download that post. You are never
> required to download *any* posts other than the ones you specifically
> want to read.
Except that when you're on dial-up, you don't want
to be online all the time you read a group. So you
download all messages in advance.
Of course, when you're reading through google groups,
you have to be online all the time, too, so in this
case my argument doesn't apply. So call me pedantic.
> [...]
Schobi
--
SpamTrap [at] gmx.de is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"If you put a large switch in some cave somewhere, with a sign
on it saying 'End-of-the-World Switch. PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH',
the paint wouldn't even have time to dry."
Terry Pratchett
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #222321 ] |
Fr, 17 Februar 2006 13:32 |
|
Hendrik Schober wrote:
> Except that when you're on dial-up, you don't want
> to be online all the time you read a group. So you
> download all messages in advance.
It's been a while since I've had dial-up...but I used to download all
the headers for a group, mark the ones that looked interesting (while my
filters automatically downloaded certain messages) and then I downloaded
the selected message bodies. It was certainly quicker than downloading
the whole lot.
--
Kimberley Verburg
kim [at] lspace.org
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #222325 ] |
Fr, 17 Februar 2006 13:53 |
|
Hendrik Schober wrote:
> Flesh-eating Dragon wrote:
> > Huh? What on earth are you talking about? With a conventional
> > newsreader, you click on a group to download headers from that group,
> > and click on a post heading to download that post. You are never
> > required to download *any* posts other than the ones you specifically
> > want to read.
>
> Except that when you're on dial-up, you don't want
> to be online all the time you read a group. So you
> download all messages in advance.
I've always used dialup, and I've always read news online.
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #222329 ] |
Fr, 17 Februar 2006 14:06 |
|
Flesh-eating Dragon wrote:
> I've always used dialup, and I've always read news online.
My phone bill would have been horrible if I'd done that (this was
several years ago when I was still living in the Netherlands). To think
I used to live in NZ where local calls were free. I had no idea how
spoiled I was.
--
Kimberley Verburg
kim [at] lspace.org
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #222340 ] |
Fr, 17 Februar 2006 14:46 |
|
Flesh-eating Dragon <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote:
> Hendrik Schober wrote:
> > Flesh-eating Dragon wrote:
>
> > > Huh? What on earth are you talking about? With a conventional
> > > newsreader, you click on a group to download headers from that group,
> > > and click on a post heading to download that post. You are never
> > > required to download *any* posts other than the ones you specifically
> > > want to read.
> >
> > Except that when you're on dial-up, you don't want
> > to be online all the time you read a group. So you
> > download all messages in advance.
>
> I've always used dialup, and I've always read news online.
You either have a very cheap dial-up or to much
money.
Schobi
--
SpamTrap [at] gmx.de is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"If you put a large switch in some cave somewhere, with a sign
on it saying 'End-of-the-World Switch. PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH',
the paint wouldn't even have time to dry."
Terry Pratchett
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #222341 ] |
Fr, 17 Februar 2006 14:49 |
|
Kimberley Verburg <kim [at] lspace.org> wrote:
> Hendrik Schober wrote:
>
> > Except that when you're on dial-up, you don't want
> > to be online all the time you read a group. So you
> > download all messages in advance.
>
> It's been a while since I've had dial-up...but I used to download all
> the headers for a group, mark the ones that looked interesting (while my
> filters automatically downloaded certain messages) and then I downloaded
> the selected message bodies. It was certainly quicker than downloading
> the whole lot.
I used to do that, too. Then I found that I often
need to read a message in order to know whether I
would be interested in the replies. So my marking
for downloading got more and more liberal, until
I found it to be a waste of time. (I still use it
sometimes for groups I don't read regularly, but
want to read a few specific message from. Like
when I asked a question from work and want to
check for answers when I'm home.) So nowadays I
just download everything and then look at it. With
ISDN even afp only takes a few seconds for all
messages.
Schobi
--
SpamTrap [at] gmx.de is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"If you put a large switch in some cave somewhere, with a sign
on it saying 'End-of-the-World Switch. PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH',
the paint wouldn't even have time to dry."
Terry Pratchett
|
|
|
| Re: Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #222345 ] |
Fr, 17 Februar 2006 15:21 |
|
Hendrik Schober wrote:
> Flesh-eating Dragon wrote:
> > Hendrik Schober wrote:
> > > Except that when you're on dial-up, you don't want
> > > to be online all the time you read a group. So you
> > > download all messages in advance.
> >
> > I've always used dialup, and I've always read news online.
>
> You either have a very cheap dial-up or to much
> money.
That depends on your perspective, doesn't it - whether my country has
cheap dialup or yours has peculiarly expensive dialup. I strongly
suspect the latter.
A local phone call costs fifty cents, I think. If I dialed up and
stayed online for three minutes, that would add fifty cents to my phone
bill. If I dialed up and stayed online for three hours, that would add
fifty cents to my phone bill. The charge is for the connection, not for
how long you stay connected.
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: [I]Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #222363 ] |
Fr, 17 Februar 2006 17:46 |
|
Hendrik Schober wrote:
> Flesh-eating Dragon <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote:
> > Hendrik Schober wrote:
> > > Flesh-eating Dragon wrote:
> >
> > > > Huh? What on earth are you talking about? With a conventional
> > > > newsreader, you click on a group to download headers from that grou=
p,
> > > > and click on a post heading to download that post. You are never
> > > > required to download *any* posts other than the ones you specifical=
ly
> > > > want to read.
> > >
> > > Except that when you're on dial-up, you don't want
> > > to be online all the time you read a group. So you
> > > download all messages in advance.
> >
> > I've always used dialup, and I've always read news online.
>
> You either have a very cheap dial-up or to much
> money.
>
> Schobi
>
My own dial-up connection costs (methinks) =A3100 per year, and then the
actual phone calls are free. Which naturally means my phoneline is
fairly regularly in use.
Rob
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #228090 ] |
So, 19 Februar 2006 01:16 |
|
"Pumba" <pumba [at] muizenberg.org.za> wrote:
> CJ wrote:
> > And what's with the new 'profile' link? I know that anyone could, in
> > theory, go and search for all my posts across all groups if they wanted
> > to, but now it's just so... convenient - it's somewhat disturbing.
>
> I have a profile defined now, in the space that Google has provided.
>
> I'd actually like to make it even easier for ppl to find and track ALL
> that I do throughout the entire Internet.
>
> Why not? If I meet someone new, I'd like to be able to give them access
> to every scrap of info about me that I have ever CHOSEN to publish
> online.
>
> I CHOSE deliberately to publish that information. For a reason. I
> WANTED it made public. not just in the little niche I placed the
> information.
Yeah. Except... Google know just a tad more about you than just what you
posted to which newsgroup. They've been collecting data on GMail use[1],
web searches, and everything. Not all of which is normally public
knowledge.
> > But don't let me get started on Google Groups - they should never have
> > changed to 2.0, should have just stuck with the old version. It was
> > much better.
>
> The recent improvements have confirmed my decision to shift to
> accessing Usenet via Google's web interface.
Improvements? You mean, such as being able to reply, _if_ you remember
to push the right button, as any other netizen has been able to do for
decades?
> The fact that I can access the entire Usenet archive is a big part of
> that.
You can do that without posting through it.
> Being able to rate people's posts is cool.
Whoa! Danger! Who rates whose posts, for whose use?
If _I_ rate people's posts for _my_ use and no others, that's no more,
and from the sound of it a good deal less, than any half-decent score
file in quite a few real Usenet clienst will do for you.
If _anyone_ can rate anyone's posts for anyone to see... my goodness,
that's just begging for abuse.
> > I've played around with a couple of Windows news readers, but the best
> > newsreader I ever used was plain old tin. Don't suppose anyone knows
> > if there's a Windows version? Although I'd need a decent, postable
> > news server that carries afp anyway, so I'd probably have to stick to
> > google for now :-(
>
> I'm no longer on dial up. I'm on a Telkom DSL 512K connection since Dec
> 06 2005.
>
> If I subscribe to a conventional downloadable newsfeed, then i have to
> daily suck down ALL the posts from ALL the groups I am subscribed to.
>
> But I only read a few of what is published. Many of the threads hold no
> interest for me. So I'd just be wasting my bandwidth allowance
> downloading them.
>
> Hopping over to a new group is not quick via conventional feeds. With
> Google groups, I can bounce into any group with a click.
Erm... get a real newsreader.
> All I had to do was get used to a different interface. It's not the
> same as the email interface.
News is not email. Film at eleven. Microsoft may want to watch, as may
Mozilla.
Richard
[1] Bloody lot of good that'll do them in my case... good luck inferring
anything from AFPChess games[2] and test mails for my employer... in
Dutch.
[2] On which subject, who's on?
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #228184 ] |
So, 19 Februar 2006 23:48 |
|
[...]
This post is a test with a point.
I will explain what the point was in a followup to it.
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #228187 ] |
Mo, 20 Februar 2006 00:08 |
|
I wrote:
> This post is a test with a point.
> I will explain what the point was in a followup to it.
It's as I expected. :-(
The recent changes to the Google Groups interface have brought about
some changes to the way Google Groups mishandles tags. I was confirming
the details of these changes.
When you view a thread as a tree, Google Groups used to show you the
points in the thread where the tag changed or was removed. It no longer
does so. You can no longer tell that a previously [I] thread has been
retagged [M] just by looking at the thread tree, nor can you tell that
a post to an [I] thread lacks a tag altogether. Secondly, when you
click the "show options" box above a post, Google Groups no longer
shows you the subject heading. So you can't see the tag that way,
either.
By viewing the thread as a tree, you can still tell what the tag
*originally* was, but you can't be sure that it still is. I think you
can only do that now by clicking "view original".
The situation is dire. Far from doing something about the tagging
issue, the foul fiends at Google Groups have instead made it worse.
Google Groups still strips tags from posts - with all the morality of
vandals uprooting signposts - but now it's much harder for a Google
Groups user to *tell* that the tags are being stripped. It was hard
enough before, if you didn't know they were there.
It also means that my advisory document for Google Groups users is now
somewhat dated. I can't say when I'll have time to attend to this.
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #229445 ] |
Mi, 22 Februar 2006 17:27 |
|
Flesh-eating Dragon <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote:
> Hendrik Schober wrote:
> > Flesh-eating Dragon wrote:
> > > Hendrik Schober wrote:
>
> > > > Except that when you're on dial-up, you don't want
> > > > to be online all the time you read a group. So you
> > > > download all messages in advance.
> > >
> > > I've always used dialup, and I've always read news online.
> >
> > You either have a very cheap dial-up or to much
> > money.
>
> That depends on your perspective, doesn't it - whether my country has
> cheap dialup or yours has peculiarly expensive dialup. I strongly
> suspect the latter.
Oh, on that I agree, of course! :o>
> A local phone call costs fifty cents, I think. If I dialed up and
> stayed online for three minutes, that would add fifty cents to my phone
> bill. If I dialed up and stayed online for three hours, that would add
> fifty cents to my phone bill. The charge is for the connection, not for
> how long you stay connected.
Local calls used to be DM 0,20 (~EUR 0,10 today) here
in Berlin. Now we pay by the minute.
Schobi
--
SpamTrap [at] gmx.de is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"If you put a large switch in some cave somewhere, with a sign
on it saying 'End-of-the-World Switch. PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH',
the paint wouldn't even have time to dry."
Terry Pratchett
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #229854 ] |
So, 26 Februar 2006 22:11 |
|
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 00:16:05 +0000, Richard Bos wrote:
>> Why not? If I meet someone new, I'd like to be able to give them access
>> to every scrap of info about me that I have ever CHOSEN to publish
>> online.
>>
>> I CHOSE deliberately to publish that information. For a reason. I
>> WANTED it made public. not just in the little niche I placed the
>> information.
>
> Yeah. Except... Google know just a tad more about you than just what you
> posted to which newsgroup. They've been collecting data on GMail use[1],
> web searches, and everything. Not all of which is normally public
> knowledge.
Not all of which is public knowledge?? I can't think where you came to
that conclusion!
I personally use the "pan" link, but when I visited one of these google
groups, just to have a little look around, the "View Profile" bit didn't
just show me everybody it was spying on that was inside my threads, or
other afpers threads, but also delved into inside knowledge about the
people that we talk to on any of our other newsgroups! :-(
There's absolutely nothing you can do about it either, so you can't tell
me that there's anything on these google groups that isn't public
knowledge, or can be hidden by ourselves in any way - we're stuck with it!!
Angry
Sofie
--
Please visit my deviantART page: http://sofen.deviantart.com/
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #229857 ] |
So, 26 Februar 2006 22:42 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #229866 ] |
Mo, 27 Februar 2006 00:36 |
|
quoting Sofia <pinkmonster2000REMOVE [at] allcapsyahoo.com> :
[snip]
> There's absolutely nothing you can do about it either, so you can't tell
> me that there's anything on these google groups that isn't public
> knowledge, or can be hidden by ourselves in any way - we're stuck with it!!
The obvious solution is to spend a little effort spreading misinformation.
It's the 'Net of a million lies, after all. If someone is going to collect
information about you without your consent, you are in no way obligated
to ensure that such information is _correct_.
--
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
"Death cannot stop True Love. All it can do | stremler [at] rohan.sdsu.edu
is delay it for awhile." | Stewart Stremler
-The Man In Black (_The Princess Bride_) |
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #229885 ] |
Mo, 27 Februar 2006 06:31 |
|
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 21:11:42 +0000, Sofia
<pinkmonster2000REMOVE [at] ALLCAPSyahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 00:16:05 +0000, Richard Bos wrote:
>
>>> Why not? If I meet someone new, I'd like to be able to give them access
>>> to every scrap of info about me that I have ever CHOSEN to publish
>>> online.
>>>
>>> I CHOSE deliberately to publish that information. For a reason. I
>>> WANTED it made public. not just in the little niche I placed the
>>> information.
>>
>> Yeah. Except... Google know just a tad more about you than just what you
>> posted to which newsgroup. They've been collecting data on GMail use[1],
>> web searches, and everything. Not all of which is normally public
>> knowledge.
>
>
>Not all of which is public knowledge?? I can't think where you came to
>that conclusion!
>
>I personally use the "pan" link, but when I visited one of these google
>groups, just to have a little look around, the "View Profile" bit didn't
>just show me everybody it was spying on that was inside my threads, or
>other afpers threads, but also delved into inside knowledge about the
>people that we talk to on any of our other newsgroups! :-(
>
>There's absolutely nothing you can do about it either, so you can't tell
>me that there's anything on these google groups that isn't public
>knowledge, or can be hidden by ourselves in any way - we're stuck with it!!
>
>
>Angry
Try this one. It's been around a few years and does similar things to
Google's <http://netscan.research.microsoft.com/>
--
John Duncan Yoyo
------------------------------o)
Brought to you by the Binks for Senate campaign comittee.
Coruscant is far, far away from wesa on Naboo.
|
|
|
| Re: Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #229907 ] |
Mo, 27 Februar 2006 15:27 |
|
Sofia wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 00:16:05 +0000, Richard Bos wrote:
> >> Why not? If I meet someone new, I'd like to be able to give them access
> >> to every scrap of info about me that I have ever CHOSEN to publish
> >> online.
> >> I CHOSE deliberately to publish that information. For a reason. I
> >> WANTED it made public. not just in the little niche I placed the
> >> information.
> > Yeah. Except... Google know just a tad more about you than just what you
> > posted to which newsgroup. They've been collecting data on GMail use[1],
> > web searches, and everything. Not all of which is normally public
> > knowledge.
> Not all of which is public knowledge?? I can't think where you came to
> that conclusion!
> I personally use the "pan" link,
"pan" link? wtf is that?
> but when I visited one of these google
> groups, just to have a little look around, the "View Profile" bit didn't
> just show me everybody it was spying on that was inside my threads, or
> other afpers threads, but also delved into inside knowledge about the
> people that we talk to on any of our other newsgroups! :-(
> There's absolutely nothing you can do about it either, so you can't tell
> me that there's anything on these google groups that isn't public
> knowledge, or can be hidden by ourselves in any way - we're stuck with it!!
> Angry
> Sofie
What are you angry about?
Some woman I personally met in 2000 via Usenet wanted to sleep with me.
I declined her. She was fat, ugly and generally revolting to me.
What I didn't know at the time (but now do) is that she is also a
herpes sufferer.
I know that NOW because I happened to come across one of her posts
recently. I automatically hit the View Profile link to see what else
she had been writing. Then I removed the NOSPAM from her email address
and re-searched on her email address. Got up one of those, viewed the
profile, and got posts of hers from 2000... and discovered that she had
herpes back then.
A narrow escape for me, i think.
So, hell, Google LAY IT ALL BARE - PLEASE!
I don't wanna catch Herpes from some horny old cow who deceives men
into bed.
I wouldn't "do" any woman who has any STD, not with all the condoms in
China on my dick!
Thank you, Google!
Oh, and in case you missed it, I'm not an advocate of online privacy.
The reverse in fact.
If you wish to retain your privacy, don't put the info online in the
first place.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #229908 ] |
Mo, 27 Februar 2006 15:48 |
|
Pumba wrote:
> Some woman I personally met in 2000 via Usenet wanted to sleep with me.
> I declined her. She was fat, ugly and generally revolting to me.
>
> What I didn't know at the time (but now do) is that she is also a
> herpes sufferer.
>
> I know that NOW because I happened to come across one of her posts
> recently. I automatically hit the View Profile link to see what else
> she had been writing. Then I removed the NOSPAM from her email address
> and re-searched on her email address. Got up one of those, viewed the
> profile, and got posts of hers from 2000... and discovered that she had
> herpes back then.
>
> A narrow escape for me, i think.
You have GOT to be kidding.
If you EVER choose to sleep with someone you do not know well, and have
not spent some time developing mutual trust with, then IMO you are
bl8dy foolish. No ifs, no buts. A narrow escape from choosing to sleep
with someone is a _very_ dubious concept.
Not everyone will agree with me. *shrug* That's life.
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #229910 ] |
Mo, 27 Februar 2006 15:55 |
|
Richard Bos wrote:
> "Pumba" <pumba [at] muizenberg.org.za> wrote:
> > CJ wrote:
> > > And what's with the new 'profile' link? I know that anyone could, in
> > > theory, go and search for all my posts across all groups if they wanted
> > > to, but now it's just so... convenient - it's somewhat disturbing.
> > I have a profile defined now, in the space that Google has provided.
> > I'd actually like to make it even easier for ppl to find and track ALL
> > that I do throughout the entire Internet.
> > Why not? If I meet someone new, I'd like to be able to give them access
> > to every scrap of info about me that I have ever CHOSEN to publish
> > online.
> > I CHOSE deliberately to publish that information. For a reason. I
> > WANTED it made public. not just in the little niche I placed the
> > information.
> Yeah. Except... Google know just a tad more about you than just what you
> posted to which newsgroup. They've been collecting data on GMail use[1],
> web searches, and everything. Not all of which is normally public
> knowledge.
I have a new gmail account - it's great!
And I downloaded Google's new desktop search tool and ENABLED all those
privacy busting features, so that my index is maintained on Google's
servers.
Why?
Because I trust Google.
If you don't want your Usenet posts appearing in Google's archives,
just X-No-Archive them. You can do that in Google Groups - make the
first line of your post have this:
"X-No-Archive=yes" (without quotes)
Forte Agent can set this for you automatically.
Mozilla Thunderbird can do it too (but you need to add a custom header
via the mailnews.js file - manual edit required).
"Mozilla Thunderbird also has the ability to insert custom headers into
both email and Usenet messages. This feature must be manually enabled
by editing the mailnews.js file (instructions are included in the .js
file). However, custom headers are not automatically inserted into
messages by Thunderbird - the user must add them manually to each
message as desired."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-No-Archive
Outlook Express does not have the ability to X-No-Archive one's Usenet
posts.
I don't use X-No-Archive. My Usenet posts are part of my legacy. I WANT
them kept! ALL of them!
> > > But don't let me get started on Google Groups - they should never have
> > > changed to 2.0, should have just stuck with the old version. It was
> > > much better.
> > The recent improvements have confirmed my decision to shift to
> > accessing Usenet via Google's web interface.
> Improvements? You mean, such as being able to reply, _if_ you remember
> to push the right button, as any other netizen has been able to do for
> decades?
Google Groups is easy to use. Easy to learn to use too.
The reply link in the header quotes just fine.
> > The fact that I can access the entire Usenet archive is a big part of
> > that.
> You can do that without posting through it.
There are benefits to posting via Google Groups. For instance, Google
gives me a remove option for every post I send through Google Groups.
I prefer posting and reading via Google Groups these days than via a
conventional newsfeed. I've switched, I've made the adjustment.
> > Being able to rate people's posts is cool.
> Whoa! Danger! Who rates whose posts, for whose use?
Any Google Groups user has the ability to rate any post (even extremely
old ones). That rating is aggregated and displayed in the header for
all Google Groups users to see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
> If _I_ rate people's posts for _my_ use and no others, that's no more,
> and from the sound of it a good deal less, than any half-decent score
> file in quite a few real Usenet clienst will do for you.
> If _anyone_ can rate anyone's posts for anyone to see... my goodness,
> that's just begging for abuse.
LOL. yeh right. the worst that can happen is that your post is rated
with 1 star. big deal.
so fucking what?
> > I'm no longer on dial up. I'm on a Telkom DSL 512K connection since Dec
> > 06 2005.
> > If I subscribe to a conventional downloadable newsfeed, then i have to
> > daily suck down ALL the posts from ALL the groups I am subscribed to.
> > But I only read a few of what is published. Many of the threads hold no
> > interest for me. So I'd just be wasting my bandwidth allowance
> > downloading them.
> > Hopping over to a new group is not quick via conventional feeds. With
> > Google groups, I can bounce into any group with a click.
> Erm... get a real newsreader.
Forte Agent is a real newsreader.
Via conventional feed, I first have to download the posts (at least,
the headers) - that takes time. Time to download perhaps a lot of
rubbish that I'm not interested in anyway?
And some newsfeeds will feed you a 12 month archive containing perhaps
100 000+ posts.
If all I want to do is pop into a new group and see what's up, Google
Groups is the best way to do that. Plus if I click the About Group
link, I get to see its activity over its entire lifespan, plus who the
top posters are.
I get the information I want fast. More taste, less filling.
> > All I had to do was get used to a different interface. It's not the
> > same as the email interface.
> News is not email.
mebbe not, but a Usenet post is very very similar to an email.
|
|
|
| Re: Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #229912 ] |
Mo, 27 Februar 2006 16:10 |
|
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 06:27:26 -0800, Pumba wrote:
> Some woman I personally met in 2000 via Usenet wanted to sleep with me. I
> declined her. She was fat, ugly and generally revolting to me.
Did she wear nail varnish?
...PeterH
(No butter on my popcorn, thanks...)
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #229917 ] |
Mo, 27 Februar 2006 16:43 |
|
Pumba wrote:
> Google Groups is easy to use. Easy to learn to use too.
>
> The reply link in the header quotes just fine.
And guess what? Some of your posts do not contain tags. Including the
one I'm replying to. It's a mistake that everyone posting through
Google makes sometimes, but guess whose fault that is? That's right:
Google. And guess who it inconveniences? That's right: everyone else in
the group, the people not using Google.
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #229918 ] |
Mo, 27 Februar 2006 16:48 |
|
Flesh-eating Dragon wrote:
> Pumba wrote:
> > Some woman I personally met in 2000 via Usenet wanted to sleep with me.
> > I declined her. She was fat, ugly and generally revolting to me.
> > What I didn't know at the time (but now do) is that she is also a
> > herpes sufferer.
> > I know that NOW because I happened to come across one of her posts
> > recently. I automatically hit the View Profile link to see what else
> > she had been writing. Then I removed the NOSPAM from her email address
> > and re-searched on her email address. Got up one of those, viewed the
> > profile, and got posts of hers from 2000... and discovered that she had
> > herpes back then.
> > A narrow escape for me, i think.
> You have GOT to be kidding.
> If you EVER choose to sleep with someone you do not know well, and have
> not spent some time developing mutual trust with, then IMO you are
> bl8dy foolish.
Erm, ppl lie - even those u think u know well.
U ever gotten an STD?
> No ifs, no buts. A narrow escape from choosing to sleep
> with someone is a _very_ dubious concept.
Well, she revolted me, so no sale.
She closely resembled a beached whale.
And... this embarrasses me to say it, she cracked a rather stinky fart
while I was having coffee with her. So I was 100% turned off by her. I
basically slapped a R50 note on the table and said "seeya..... never!"
I'm pretty sure, she pocketed the note and walked off without paying.
> Not everyone will agree with me. *shrug* That's life.
> Adrian.
Tell me about it. :-D
|
|
|
| Re: Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #229919 ] |
Mo, 27 Februar 2006 17:09 |
|
Flesh-eating Dragon wrote:
> Pumba wrote:
> > Google Groups is easy to use. Easy to learn to use too.
> > The reply link in the header quotes just fine.
> And guess what? Some of your posts do not contain tags.
original subject: Re: [I] Google Groups Does Weird Stuff
so the tag is the [I], right?
yeh, google is stripping it out when I hit Reply. I can only see the
tag if I click "Show original".
what's up with tags? what do u use them for?
> Including the
> one I'm replying to. It's a mistake that everyone posting through
> Google makes sometimes, but guess whose fault that is? That's right:
> Google. And guess who it inconveniences? That's right: everyone else in
> the group, the people not using Google.
> Adrian.
Report it as a problem to Google. Demand that they fix it.
I'll do that too, if you tell me what i need them for.
Google is obviously stripping them out on purpose.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #229924 ] |
Mo, 27 Februar 2006 17:30 |
|
Pumba wrote:
> original subject: Re: [I] Google Groups Does Weird Stuff
>
> so the tag is the [I], right?
Yep.
> Report it as a problem to Google. Demand that they fix it.
The thing is, various people already _have_ reported it. How many
people have to report it before Google will start to pay attention?
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Google Groups Does Weird Stuff [message #229938 ] |
Mo, 27 Februar 2006 19:51 |
|
Pumba wrote:
> I have a new gmail account - it's great!
>
> And I downloaded Google's new desktop search tool and ENABLED all those
> privacy busting features, so that my index is maintained on Google's
> servers.
>
> Why?
>
> Because I trust Google.
Just to make sure: You aren't being ironic, are you?
Google's business is information: Google is collecting vast amounts of
information on just about anything they can lay their hands on, and
they're not doing it out of curiosity. They *will* use it for commercial
gain, if not now, then later.
Google may claim "We're not evil" for themselves, but their willingness
to censor the google.cn search results shows that, given the choice
between doing the Right Thing and seizing a commercial opportunity,
they'll do the latter.
> If you don't want your Usenet posts appearing in Google's archives,
> just X-No-Archive them. You can do that in Google Groups - make the
> first line of your post have this:
> "X-No-Archive=yes" (without quotes)
But does that mean that Google does not archive your post, or will it be
archived, harvested for information, and just not shown to users?
> There are benefits to posting via Google Groups. For instance, Google
> gives me a remove option for every post I send through Google Groups.
And your newsreader lets you send a cancel message. The effect is about
the same: Some servers honour a cancel, some don't.
Michael
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Do Mai 24 21:56:50 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 29,60453 Sekunden |
