[OT] google groups hits new low

[Old Wolf]

If you look in the thread titled 'Re: comparing date time',
reading via google new interface, you will see:

| 1 Ioannis Vranos
| 2 Ron Natalie
| 3 osmium
| 4 osmium
| 5 Javier
| 6 Javier

However, the original message in the thread is actually (5).
(4) is a reply to (5). (1), (2), (3) and (6) are replies to (4).

I can't understand how a programmer could program this behaviour.
Obviously they have checked the References lines otherwise there
would have been no attempt to organize the messages in a tree form.
But they seem to have made a rather bizarre interpretation of
what was contained in those headers.

 

[Default User]

If you look in the thread titled 'Re: comparing date time',
reading via google new interface, you will see:

| 1 Ioannis Vranos
| 2 Ron Natalie
| 3 osmium
| 4 osmium
| 5 Javier
| 6 Javier

However, the original message in the thread is actually (5).
(4) is a reply to (5). (1), (2), (3) and (6) are replies to (4).

Reduced as I am to using Google for the nonce, I know what you mean. It
seems that very recently, threading has become whacky. Many of the
groups I've read today show the problem you mention.



Brian

 

[White Wolf]

Reduced as I am to using Google for the nonce, I know what you mean. It
seems that very recently, threading has become whacky. Many of the
groups I've read today show the problem you mention.

Probably it would be a good idea to drop them a note. Either something is
eating itself into their database (which would be very bad, as they have the
archive of usenet) or they have managed to "upgrade" some bug to 2.0

 

[red floyd]

If you look in the thread titled 'Re: comparing date time',
reading via google new interface, you will see:

| 1 Ioannis Vranos
| 2 Ron Natalie
| 3 osmium
| 4 osmium
| 5 Javier
| 6 Javier

However, the original message in the thread is actually (5).
(4) is a reply to (5). (1), (2), (3) and (6) are replies to (4).

I just want to know... WTF was wrong with the OLD user interface?

Add the new search/whatever functionality, but keep the old interface!!!!

 

[White Wolf]

I just want to know... WTF was wrong with the OLD user interface?

Add the new search/whatever functionality, but keep the old interface!!!!

I really think that your quest will be more effective if you address Google
instead of this C++ newsgroup. ;-)

 

[Thomas Matthews]

If you look in the thread titled 'Re: comparing date time',
reading via google new interface, you will see:

| 1 Ioannis Vranos
| 2 Ron Natalie
| 3 osmium
| 4 osmium
| 5 Javier
| 6 Javier

However, the original message in the thread is actually (5).
(4) is a reply to (5). (1), (2), (3) and (6) are replies to (4).

I can't understand how a programmer could program this behaviour.
Obviously they have checked the References lines otherwise there
would have been no attempt to organize the messages in a tree form.
But they seem to have made a rather bizarre interpretation of
what was contained in those headers.

Not only that, but their newsgroup advanced search doesn't
work.

I tried searching for the word "virtual"
and it came up with zero matches. However, if I went to the
page to read the newsgroups, then used that search, it
returned many matches.

I liked the old method of locating newsgroups better. Now,
If I choose the "Computers" group, I have to scroll through
many pages before getting to comp.lang.c++.

Hmmm, perhaps their competitors are easier to use.


--
Thomas Matthews

C++ newsgroup welcome message:
http://www.slack.net/~shiva/welcome.txt
C++ Faq: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite
C Faq: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/c-faq/top.html
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ faq:
http://www.comeaucomputing.com/learn/faq/
Other sites:
http://www.josuttis.com -- C++ STL Library book
http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl -- Standard Template Library

 

[Noah Roberts]

I liked the old method of locating newsgroups better. Now,
If I choose the "Computers" group, I have to scroll through
many pages before getting to comp.lang.c++.

You mean this one?
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups/dir?sel=33554433

 

[red floyd]

red floyd wrote:
[google groups rant redacted]

I really think that your quest will be more effective if you address Google
instead of this C++ newsgroup. ;-)

I know. I was just venting. The thread was marked OT anyways. But I
am sorry for affecting the S/N ratio negatively.

 

[Ioannis Vranos]

I know. I was just venting. The thread was marked OT anyways. But I
am sorry for affecting the S/N ratio negatively.

Doesn't your ISP provide a newsgroup Usenet server?

 

[Thomas Matthews]

Thomas Matthews wrote:




You mean this one?
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups/dir?sel=33554433

No, clicking on "groups" yields this one:
http://groups-beta.google.com/grphp?hl=en&tab=wg&q=

Then clicking on computers yields this one:
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups/dir?sel=16823695

I gave up on browsing and typed in "comp.lang.c"
into the directory box.

Your reference or mine are still nasty to navigate
than the old version.

--
Thomas Matthews

C++ newsgroup welcome message:
http://www.slack.net/~shiva/welcome.txt
C++ Faq: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite
C Faq: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/c-faq/top.html
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ faq:
http://www.comeaucomputing.com/learn/faq/
Other sites:
http://www.josuttis.com -- C++ STL Library book
http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl -- Standard Template Library

 

[red floyd]

Doesn't your ISP provide a newsgroup Usenet server?

Yeah, but when I'm searching archives, it's not particularly useful. Or
if I'm searching groups I don't normally subscribe to.

 

[Noah Roberts]

No, clicking on "groups" yields this one:
http://groups-beta.google.com/grphp?hl=en&tab=wg&q=

Then clicking on computers yields this one:
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups/dir?sel=16823695

I gave up on browsing and typed in "comp.lang.c"
into the directory box.

Your reference or mine are still nasty to navigate
than the old version.

Interesting. I just went in, selected the correct range for 'comp' in
the dropdown, chose comp.*, clicked comp.lang.*...found the group.
Seems to me that this is very similar to the way it used to work...

 

[Ioannis Vranos]

Yeah, but when I'm searching archives, it's not particularly useful. Or
if I'm searching groups I don't normally subscribe to.

I am searching archives myself in google without an account, while using
my ISP's newsgroups server for regular reading and posting.