OT: Google's latest dungheap

[Lane Straatman]

Lane Straatman wrote:

We're not discussing the search page, although elsewhere I've seem
people complain about changes to the image search. We're discussing the
Google Groups newsreader. The story on that since they first rolled out
the "Beta" has been one of incompetence and ignorance, well seasoned
with a dose of "don't give a damn".

I was discussing the news portal as well, which I found using a google
search for 'google groups'. It took a while for me to be able to see the
message tree we call threads as opposed to something that looks like the
result of a search. Seeing where the messages are arrayed with respect to
each other is to my mind essential to a baseline usenet functionality. I'll
make the point again that part of the problem might be that google posters
are a select crowd of people who don't think a proper newsservice is worth a
six pack per month. LS

 

[Christopher Layne]

We're not discussing the search page, although elsewhere I've seem
people complain about changes to the image search. We're discussing the
Google Groups newsreader. The story on that since they first rolled out
the "Beta" has been one of incompetence and ignorance, well seasoned
with a dose of "don't give a damn".

I've worked around the image search changes by disabling javascript for
just that site - gives me back the resolution and image urls. Completely
stupid change on Google's part in the first place.

But let's not talk about the new GG in Konqueror - absolutely unusable. Works
fine in Opera though. I'm inclined to blame Google's code rather than
Konqueror's rendering - as usually it's trashy code causing the issue more so
than the converse.

Atleast they've finally made the top search input contextually tied to the
newsgroup itself when browsing at newsgroup level. Before it had that at the
very bottom - with the top one being a generic "search all." Very annoying as
one tended to use that same input field up top expecting it to search in
group context.

 

[Guest]

I've worked around the image search changes by disabling javascript for
just that site - gives me back the resolution and image urls. Completely
stupid change on Google's part in the first place.

But let's not talk about the new GG in Konqueror - absolutely unusable. Works
fine in Opera though. I'm inclined to blame Google's code rather than
Konqueror's rendering - as usually it's trashy code causing the issue more so
than the converse.

I'm using the new GG in Konqueror without problems, and have been
(through http://groups-beta.google.com/) even when the old interface
was still available.

 

[Christopher Layne]

I'm using the new GG in Konqueror without problems, and have been
(through http://groups-beta.google.com/) even when the old interface
was still available.

Using 3.5.6 here. Body of messages are locked into a small fixed size (about 5
lines tall). It's like a fixed size frame that is no where near usable.

 

[Guest]

Using 3.5.6 here. Body of messages are locked into a small fixed size (about 5
lines tall). It's like a fixed size frame that is no where near usable.

Using 3.5.6 here too. I normally have Konqueror configured to identify
itself as Mozilla to Google for other reasons, but I tried the default
identification, and still don't run into your problem.

 

[Christopher Layne]

Using 3.5.6 here too. I normally have Konqueror configured to identify
itself as Mozilla to Google for other reasons, but I tried the default
identification, and still don't run into your problem.

I should mention that I use KDE through NX. This could be an NX issue but it
would be very very odd - as no matter what size I make my main Konq window,
the message frame is always the same. Doesn't seem like a display issue in X
itself or anything of that sort. I'll continue fiddling.

 

[Lane Straatman]

Using 3.5.6 here too. I normally have Konqueror configured to identify
itself as Mozilla to Google for other reasons, but I tried the default
identification, and still don't run into your problem.

They have a long, well-illustrated tutorial in customizing with plug-ins.
Informative but in c++. I've never had good luck with a newsreader that
acknowledges that they have too many bug reports to look at. Indeed I
uninstalled Xananews this morning. The windows didn't work on it. I miss
out on a lot of the internet because I can't play files like .avi or .mpeg.
http://www.konqueror.org/investigatebug/
LS

 

[Lane Straatman]

Default User wrote:

I agree. My PC is five years old, and I plan on running it till
something critical breaks. It's one more reason I favour Linux. It
runs fine on old hardware, while still having support for new ones.
The system requirements for Vista on the other hand...

One thing that drives the need to upgrade is certainly that windows is a
hog, and a lot of people aren't sufficiently computer-savvy to jump off the
MS bandwagon. LS

 

[lane straatman]

Old Wolf wrote, On 27/01/07 22:38:



<snip Google being a pain for accessing Usenet>

There are several free news servers out there to give you real access.
The current free ones I use are:
news.motzarella.org
news.gmane.org
news.x-privat.org
news.gazeta.pl

There are others. If you can't use one due to post blocking then email
me and I might be able to help you out.

I'm going to try to make one of those work for me. I'm remodeling for
a friend right now, and she asked me to clean up her computer a bit.
I've given this computer the affectionate name of "Forrest Gump,"
because the pauses are more appropriate for a day when we *waited* for
output.

Not only am I writing this from the google portal, it sucked me right
in so I went from tapping the keys to Flash Gordon in a flash. In
Michigan, we love Google. Of course, in Minnesota, we loved Hormel,
and therefore Spam. LS

I see no indication that whateever I'm typing has the problem that
OldWolf mentions. We'll see if it posts. I have no view of the
thread tree. LS

 

[santosh]

Harald van Dijk wrote:

I miss
out on a lot of the internet because I can't play files like .avi or .mpeg.

<snip>

Why not?

 

[Richard Bos]

<snip>

Why not?

More to the point, why?

Richard

 

[Rui Maciel]

This was on topic why?

Care to learn what "OT" is supposed to mean?


Best regards
Rui Maciel

 

[Rui Maciel]

It was posted here, and labelling something OT on the subject
line doesn't excuse an off-topic posting. I'm bemused by the
number of equally off-topic responses the post gathered.

Don't like it? Don't read it. Ignore the post and move on.

How about I make posts on Eurogames or RDF or my favourite
prog-rock bands? I'll label them OT, so that will be OK, OK?

Go right ahead. At least I won't read it. I'll ignore the post and move on.

And by the way, you are posting off-topic here.


Best regards
Rui Maciel

 

[Chris Dollin]

Care to learn what "OT" is supposed to mean?

(a) You're excessively late with this remark; it's already been
dealt with.

(b) Yes, I know what OT means. It means "I know I shouldn't
post this here, but I don't care -- why should I stick
with convention?"

 

[Chris Dollin]

Don't like it? Don't read it. Ignore the post and move on.

Yeah, sure, be another idle hand letting the group descend into
anarchy. Thanks for the advice.

Go right ahead. At least I won't read it. I'll ignore the post and move on.

Let me get this right: you think it's /OK/ to post off-topic,
even without prior thread divergence? That's really what you
mean -- let then posts fall where they will?

And by the way, you are posting off-topic here.

Um, no.

 

[Rui Maciel]

(a) You're excessively late with this remark; it's already been
dealt with.

It seems that althought you state that it has already been dealt with you
keep missing the poing.

(b) Yes, I know what OT means. It means "I know I shouldn't
post this here, but I don't care -- why should I stick
with convention?"

No, it doesn't mean that. It means "this post is off-topic and therefore
everyone who only cares about topical posts is advised to ignore it".

Hope this clears things out.


Best regards
Rui Maciel

 

[Rui Maciel]

Yeah, sure, be another idle hand letting the group descend into
anarchy. Thanks for the advice.

This group is not moderated and never was. Everyone who accesses it knows
that. If you are complaining about how a non-moderated group is not
moderated then I have to point it out that you are being rather silly. Have
you tried comp.lang.c.moderated ?

Let me get this right: you think it's /OK/ to post off-topic,
even without prior thread divergence? That's really what you
mean -- let then posts fall where they will?

Of course it is OK, specially if the poster warns forehand that the post os
off-topic. It is also ok for you to ignore whatever post you wish to
ignore. No one is forced to read them, let alone reply to them. Is there a
problem with that?

Um, no.

This newsgroup is about the C programming language, not about your views on
how someone should write a usenet post. Posting messages about your views
on usenet writing guidelines and trying to force your own particular views
on usenet writing guidelines on others is clearly off topic. At least I
never caught that on K&R's book.

So to sum things up, if you don't like to read posts which are off topic
then don't read it. If the presence of such posts insult you on any way or
form then why not ponder on the possibility of subscribing to a moderated
newsgroup?


Best regards
Rui Maciel

 

[Chris Dollin]

It seems that althought you state that it has already been dealt with you
keep missing the poing.

You rebooted it.

No, it doesn't mean that. It means "this post is off-topic and therefore
everyone who only cares about topical posts is advised to ignore it".

That's what it /should/ mean, not what it /does/ mean. IMAO.

Hope this clears things out.

Oh, yes, my basket is empty. Thank you so much.

 

[Chris Dollin]

This group is not moderated and never was.

I know. I made no claims about moderation.

Everyone who accesses it knows
that. If you are complaining about how a non-moderated group is not
moderated then I have to point it out that you are being rather silly.

Since I'm not, you don't. Happiness.

Have you tried comp.lang.c.moderated ?

No. I'm not qualified.

Of course it is OK, specially if the poster warns forehand that the post os
off-topic.

OK. I think that is one of the daftest ideas about topicality
I've ever heard. Thank you for making your position clear.

It is also ok for you to ignore whatever post you wish to
ignore. No one is forced to read them, let alone reply to them. Is there a
problem with that?

Not with /that/, no.

This newsgroup is about the C programming language, not about your views on
how someone should write a usenet post.

I haven't said anything here about how someone should write a usenet
post. I've spoken only about the /topics/ of such posts.

Posting messages about your views on usenet writing guidelines and
trying to force your own particular views on usenet writing guidelines
on others

Taking your own position seriously would mean that I could do no
such thing. I have no "force" to impose. I have an argued position.

is clearly off topic. At least I never caught that on K&R's book.

Discussions of topicality have traditionally been topical.

So to sum things up, if you don't like to read posts which are off topic
then don't read it. If the presence of such posts insult you on any way or
form

Ye gods, where do /get/ these ideas from? I'm not /insulted/ by such
posts. I think they're /inappropriate/. When there's enough inappropriate
posts, the value of a newsgroup decreases: the signal is lost in the
noise. I happen to want signal to remain in comp.lang.c.

You are, of course, free to ignore any post I might make.

then why not ponder on the possibility of subscribing to a moderated
newsgroup?

Because I know that people I respect post in this one, and this is
the one to which I contribute. I know this particular thread doesn't
make it visible, but I /have/ been known to comment on C code and C
the language as well as express my amazement at rampant offtopicality.

 

[Rui Maciel]

That's what it should mean, not what it does mean. IMAO.

It not only *should* but it also *does* mean it. Your amazement doesn't come
as a surprise. But now that this simple concept has been explained to you
(and assuming that you were able to understand it) I believe that you can
easily understand how those "topic police" tantrums don't favour anyone or
help any newsgroup at all.


Best regards
Rui Maciel