why do some ppl hate google groups 2106

Usenet newsgroups have been around since 1979, so it's a long existing 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