GoogleGroups Acting Hinky?

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:05:06 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote in :

... Google's user
interface generally tends to get in the way, rather than facilitate
reading the news. I suppose that's why you and I don't use it except
for research.

I'd hate to have it be my only means of accessing and posting
to Usenet.

GoogleGroups is also a portal for anonymous spam entry into Usenet.
GoogleGroups is not a responsible member of the Usenet community,
because they do not revoke access from users who post spam articles.
In the old days, if your site was a source of spam content, your
Usenet node would find itself disconnected. Progress... :-(

It's tough. I can see how they are caught between a rock
and a hard place. On balance, I think they do a lot more
good--vastly more good--than harm.

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:27:55 -0400, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
wrote in :

I can see how they are caught between a rock and a hard place.

I can't. How does GoogleGroups situation differ from other Usenet
gateways?

Enforcing their stated policies concerning the posting of articles to
Usenet doesn't seem to be too big a problem for most ISPs, premium
Usenet providers, and web-based gateways. Why shouldn't it be
expected of GoogleGroups too?

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:04:01 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote in :

I can see how they are caught between a rock and a hard place.

I can't. How does GoogleGroups situation differ from other Usenet
gateways?

[The following is based on guesses and surmises. I have
no inside information whatsoever about Google's actual
business plan.]

Seems to me that Google is providing services that are free to
end-users by selling other services to customers.

One of the services they provide is archiving Usenet--the
whole shooting match. It's a pretty amazing effort.

They can limit costs by limiting the processing of the data.
Putting people on duty to sort out what is and is not spam
diminishes their profits. Their profits are what allow them
to do the archiving and provide it free to end users.

So they could make a better archive if they were willing to
spend money on it--but spending money on it might make it
impossible to provide free access to the archive.

Another free service that they offer is gmail. They want
people to trust that they are not censoring their gmail
accounts. If they are too aggressive in closing accounts,
they may lose whatever the gmail business is worth to them.

Enforcing their stated policies concerning the posting of articles to
Usenet doesn't seem to be too big a problem for most ISPs, premium
Usenet providers, and web-based gateways. Why shouldn't it be
expected of GoogleGroups too?

I expect more from a service I pay for. One of the nice things
Supernews does is filter aggressively. It's amazing how much
stuff they clean up compared to other news servers I have used
(Google included). I appreciate that filtering, but I can see
why other news servers take a different approach. Astraweb
($10 for 25 GB) advertises itself as "Complete, uncensored
Usenet." Google seems to be located down at that end of
the spectrum.

Marty

--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:27:55 -0400, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
wrote in :

I can see how they are caught between a rock and a hard place.

I can't. How does GoogleGroups situation differ from other Usenet
gateways?

Enforcing their stated policies concerning the posting of articles to
Usenet doesn't seem to be too big a problem for most ISPs, premium
Usenet providers, and web-based gateways. Why shouldn't it be
expected of GoogleGroups too?

Because Google Groups is free and they don't have a good way confirming you
are who you say you are. If I create a new account and spam with it on
Google I just open a new account when they close the old one. Supernews on
the other hand requires me to pay with a credit card or my ISP pays them.

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:35:28 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:27:55 -0400, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
wrote in :

I can see how they are caught between a rock and a hard place.

I can't. How does GoogleGroups situation differ from other Usenet
gateways?

Enforcing their stated policies concerning the posting of articles to
Usenet doesn't seem to be too big a problem for most ISPs, premium
Usenet providers, and web-based gateways. Why shouldn't it be
expected of GoogleGroups too?

Because Google Groups is free

How does the fact that GoogleGroups doesn't charge for the use of
their web site give them license to act irresponsibly? Many free
web-based Usenet gateways do act responsibly; why not GoogleGroups?

and they don't have a good way confirming you are who you say you are.

Sure they do. They not only have your IP address, they have the
information (username, password, etc) you used to create your
GoogleGrups account.

If I create a new account and spam with it on Google I just open a new
account when they close the old one.

So you're saying, that it's okay for GoogleGrups not to terminate the
accounts of those who have posted spam from their Usenet gateway,
because there's a possibility of another account being opened from the
same IP address? I disagree. When they see multiple GoogleGroups
accounts being opened by a user with the same IP address, I would hope
they will have a clue about what's going on.

Supernews on the other hand requires me to pay with a credit card or my ISP pays them.

Therefore Supernews has a _disincentive_ for terminating the accounts
of those subscribers who use their Supernews account to inject spam
articles into the news stream. Yet Supernews acts responsibly, and
terminate the accounts of their subscribers who fail to adhere their
terms of use agreement, unlike GoogleGroups.

So as a member of the Big-8 whose mission it is to impart organization
to Usenet, you have no qualms about nodes that inject spam articles
into the news stream? I find that to be an interesting position, to
say the least.

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:08:48 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote in :

So as a member of the Big-8 whose mission it is to impart organization
to Usenet ...

The group of which I am a member deals with eight Usenet hierarchies,
not the whole of Usenet.

The "organization" that we bring to these eight hierarchies is to
maintain a canonical list of newsgroups. What people do with those
newsgroups is beyond our powers of "organization."

When I write in my own name (as I did in this case), I am speaking
only for myself as a participant in r.a.p. I am not speaking on
behalf of the board.

... you have no qualms about nodes that inject spam articles
into the news stream?

If you want to campaign for Google to get the Usenet Death Penalty,
have at it. The big-8 board isn't involved in UDPs. Only the
news administrators can agree to isolate other news administrators.

I find that to be an interesting position, to
say the least.

Google has my profound gratitude and deepest sympathy.
I use their services every day--many times a day.
On balance, I think they do way more good than harm
to Usenet. YMMV.

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 23:25:23 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote in :

... When they see multiple GoogleGroups
accounts being opened by a user with the same IP address, I would hope
they will have a clue about what's going on.

IP addresses can be spoofed.

Some folks have dynamic IP addresses--it's not always
the same for the same user on the same computer.

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

WTF, Jay. Why did you ignore my post and selectively snip the other post that
recommended going with the free news service offered by one of this group's
own?

I was trying to avoid the issue, but if you are referring to our
Austrian friend, I personally would not place anything of value --
even something so trivial as usenet access -- in the hands of someone
so...bizarre.

I prefer to place my business in the hands of rational beings, thank
you, and Marty has proved time and again, over a period of many years,
that he is (to put it politely) whacked. Even free is too high a
price.

Why are you whining about the extra cost of your ISP's newsgroup service
when there are free alternatives to both your own ISP's version and Google's
flaky service? Why is it that every six months or so you have to post about
your miserable experiences with Google's groups and then decline every bit of
advice suggesting quite capable and free alternatives?

I was actually trying to see if this was a universal problem, or if
there was something wrong solely with my configuration/system.

Thankfully, it's a moot point, as GoogleGroups are back to their
normal, excellent selves...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

So chances are great that this topic won't be brought up by you again for a
couple of months. Let's see what other topics "of general interest" will be
brought up by you "in the name of all here" ...

At least my threads have *something* to do with
rec.aviation.piloting.

I just scanned 5 pages of your posts (again, something GoogleGroups
excels at) and slogged through your numerous posts on how stupid
presidential TFRs are, how stupid it is to expect English to be spoken
in the US, and an occasional comment on someone ELSE'S flying
experiences -- but strangely, none -- not one -- about your own
piloting experiences.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"