Re: why do some ppl hate google groups
- From: et472@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Black)
- Date: 20 Aug 2006 02:43:10 GMT
(onemore.1@xxxxxxxxx) writes:
This is my second topic using google groups and my second topic inUsenet newsgroups have been around since 1979, so it's a long existing
usenet too. i tried other news readers but i only downloaded binaries.
i didnt know how to post messages. I read lot of posts in different
categories and understood that some people might consider this as a
spam topic.
Anyway, getting to my actual question, why do some (or many) (not
everyone though) people hate when other people post messages using
google groups. i just don't get it. can someone explain it in cool or
easy way?
culture. Dejanews only started archiving in 1996, and google only
took over the archive a few years back.
What you miss is that it's not google that people hate, it's the
way people act from there. I've had newsgroup access since late 1994,
and when my previous ISP dropped newsgroups a few years back, I used
google for a while, and realistically nobody commented except
when people used software to build up stats. Because I knew the
medium, and acted accordingly.
It is too easy for people to post from google and not even know
of the existing culture. They think google is the newsgroups, so
they can't grasp why one should quote the message being replied to
(because they think it's all web-based, centralized on google
and that everyone sees all the messages in the thread that way,
when Usenet is a decentralized system with the messages being
shuffled from news server to news server, originally over phone
lines). They think it's just another "web board" and act
accordingly.
Without google, people would have to jump through some hoops
to get here, but that process would eliminate the ones who
think it's all a game, like some silly myspace thing. (I've
been taking a look at that recently, upon finding some people
I know have pages there, and believe me it is a very different
space, and I would argue that it is a pretty vacuous space,
especially with the space defined by commercial interests.)
The process would require some learning, and that would make
better posters.
ONe of the things that happens now is that it is pretty easy
when one sees bad behaviour to conclude that the poster is
coming from google, and any time I've checked, it turns out
to be true. In other words, the bad behaviour is the indicator,
checking the headers for origin is only the verification.
There's always been bad behaviour, google just makes it easier.
But google wraps it like the newsgroups are their "google groups",
they do things like mask email addresses in the archive (as if
they wanted to protect the privacy of their users, when it only
protects that privacy if people view the message from google).
Years ago, one might find the newsgroups because you were
directly told about them, and when you first ran a news reader
at your ISP, likely it would be set up so a handful of newsgroups
were in effect waiting for you, and those would be relavant to
the newcomer to the newsgroups. It's too easy for someone to
search the newsgroups like they'd search for webpages, and
then jump in without a clue of where they are or of existing
culture and etiquette.
That recent thread about google is a case in point. Not
only did the poster cross-post, but he cross-posted to
newsgroups where the matter really had no relevance at all.
That you used a newsreader to retrieve binaries is telling.
Because using the newsgroups to distribute binaries is
terribly inefficient, given that few will actually want
each specific one, they will disappear pretty fast, they
are really large, and must be duplicated on every single
newsserver that carries that newsgroup. It made sense
in 1981, when the binaries were small and related to the
discussion in other newsgroups, and especially given that
distribution was by telephone so nobody could count
on users having full access to the internet. But just
about anyone who has newsgroup access today has a full
ISP account, and they can do ftp and webpages, and even
gopher. But using those means, the file is only transferred
when someone actually wants the file.
I consider it part of the decay of the newsgroups that binaries
have become so bloated, I've seen figures suggesting the binary
newsgroups use up most of the resources dedicated to the newsgroups,
and not only is it inefficient, but too much of the time
those files are illegal copies of programs and tv shows and music.
It gives a bad name to the newsgroups, and yet people like to leech
those files while ignoring the main purpose which is discussion.
google doesn't archive binaries precisely because they take up
too much space (and likely legalities come into play too). But
in some ways it's the same thing, too many people thinking the
newsgroups are for binaries, and too many thinking google is
the newsgroups, and it's damaging to the very old culture here.
Michael
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: why do some ppl hate google groups
- From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
- Re: why do some ppl hate google groups
- References:
- why do some ppl hate google groups
- From: onemore . 1
- why do some ppl hate google groups
- Prev by Date: Re: Internet conection problem
- Next by Date: Re: why do some ppl hate google groups
- Previous by thread: Re: why do some ppl hate google groups
- Next by thread: Re: why do some ppl hate google groups
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
