OT: more Google groups brain damage

[Spiros Bousbouras]

It appears that if a thread reaches 1000 posts then Google
groups displays new replies as new threads instead of as part
of the original one. You can verify this with the "Float
comparison" thread here or with a thread on comp.lang.lisp with
titles either "macros" or "Seeking computer-programming job
(Sunnyvale, CA)".

Nice one.

 

[Doug Miller]

It appears that if a thread reaches 1000 posts then Google
groups displays new replies as new threads instead of as part
of the original one.

No big deal, IMO -- by the time a thread reaches 1000 posts, it has almost
inevitably drifted so far from its original topic that it is _entirely
appropriate_ to regard and treat it as a new thread. In fact, there's
considerable room to make the argument that the threshold is much, much lower
than 1000 posts, possibly by an order of magnitude.

Definitely not something I'm going to lose any sleep over.

 

[Spiros Bousbouras]

No big deal, IMO -- by the time a thread reaches 1000 posts, it has almost
inevitably drifted so far from its original topic that it is _entirely
appropriate_ to regard and treat it as a new thread. In fact, there's
considerable room to make the argument that the threshold is much, much lower
than 1000 posts, possibly by an order of magnitude.

No , you don't understand. After you reach 1000 you don't just
get a second thread , you get several new threads when in
reality they are just continuations of the original one. Some
replies seem to get attached to one of the new threads, some
start a new thread of their own ; I don't know what's the
pattern which makes one or the other happen.

For example here are some of the threads appearing on Google
groups. All of the following should actually appear under the
long "Float comparison" thread whose first page is at
< http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.lang.c/browse_thread/thread/c3ffba0fe94c0e45#
< http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.lang.c/browse_thread/thread/c1f68309284a2273#< http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.lang.c/browse_thread/thread/3c2aea1cc9e1a79c#< http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.lang.c/browse_thread/thread/f9c203a25e400714#< http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.lang.c/browse_thread/thread/101722a974843ed9#

Definitely not something I'm going to lose any sleep over.

I wouldn't expect anyone to lose sleep over such a thing but it
is annoying and betrays sloppiness on behalf of Google.

 

[Doug Miller]

No big deal, IMO -- by the time a thread reaches 1000 posts, it has almost
inevitably drifted so far from its original topic that it is _entirely
appropriate_ to regard and treat it as a new thread. In fact, there's
considerable room to make the argument that the threshold is much, much lower
than 1000 posts, possibly by an order of magnitude.

No , you don't understand. After you reach 1000 you don't just
get a second thread , you get several new threads when in
reality they are just continuations of the original one. Some
replies seem to get attached to one of the new threads, some
start a new thread of their own ; I don't know what's the
pattern which makes one or the other happen.[/QUOTE]

No, *you* don't understand: by the time it reaches 1000 posts, it's no longer
useful anyway -- so who cares *what* happens to it?
[...]

I wouldn't expect anyone to lose sleep over such a thing but it
is annoying and betrays sloppiness on behalf of Google.

And that is a surprise to anyone exactly why?

 

[CBFalconer]

It appears that if a thread reaches 1000 posts then Google
groups displays new replies as new threads instead of as part
of the original one. You can verify this with the "Float
comparison" thread here or with a thread on comp.lang.lisp with
titles either "macros" or "Seeking computer-programming job
(Sunnyvale, CA)".

Google is wrong.

 

[James Dow Allen]

No, *you* don't understand:


And that is a surprise to anyone exactly why?

Don't expect to get much sympathy from non-Googler's, Spiros.
They'll rant and rave about .sig conventions adopted when
4800 baud modems were state-of-the-art, but view Google Groups
bugs as a source of joy, and will deliberately provoke pain for
Google users.

It's hard to understand why so many otherwise-intelligent
people can't comprehend that Google Groups is a major
convenience, or even necessity, for many people.
I finally installed xnews on my flashdrive, just to bypass
some of their whining, but still read news with Google and usually
post from here as well!

It is ironic, however, that Best Programmers in the World, Inc.
has so much trouble avoiding the appearance of Brain Damage
in its Groups interface. Nevertheless, its fast response,
searchability, and huge archive make it an excellent interface,
perhaps even for (open-minded) people who have easy access to
a real server.

James Dow Allen

 

[Rich Webb]

It is ironic, however, that Best Programmers in the World, Inc.
has so much trouble avoiding the appearance of Brain Damage
in its Groups interface. Nevertheless, its fast response,
searchability, and huge archive make it an excellent interface,

^ used to

perhaps even for (open-minded) people who have easy access to
a real server.

The "advanced search" is seriously broken.

Actually, even the description "seriously broken" gives it more
credibility than it deserves; it's more of a large negative number in
the usefulness scale.

 

[Beej Jorgensen]

It appears that if a thread reaches 1000 posts then Google groups
displays new replies as new threads instead of as part of the original
one.

"We are aware of an issue where users replying to long threads (1000+
posts) will have their replies generate a new thread. We are working on
a solution for this issue."

http://groups.google.com/support/bin/static.py?page=known_issues.cs

[BELL RINGS]
SAM: Another 1000-post thread!
RALPH: W00t! What's it about this time?
SAM: Um... [TYPES ON KEYBOARD] "floating point math."
RALPH: Dude. I am so rapt. Tell me more.
SAM: Well, I thought that floating point math was pretty well-defined
and that most computers managed to do it just fine.
RALPH: Right, I mean, I use it every day to do... stuff.
SAM: When C stores--
RALPH: --Stop. Is this on comp.lang.c?
SAM: Yes.
RALPH: Shit.
SAM: Yes. When C stores a floating point number, it stores it in a
way that always maps back to the same number, but there are an
infinite number of reals on either side.
RALPH: [LOOKS AT GOOGLE CORPORATE CALENDAR FOR ANYTHING]
SAM: So one way to look at it is that the floating point number
represents this range.
RALPH: It's both an exact number and a range?
SAM: ...Yes. Maybe. I don't know--I don't want to get involved in
this.
RALPH: It's like there's this box with some poison and you put a cat in
there... but first you teach it to use a hammer...?
SAM: Is that pot of coffee ready?
RALPH: Totally. Want a cup?
SAM: Thanks, man.
[LIGHTS FADE]

-Beej

 

[Spiros Bousbouras]

"We are aware of an issue where users replying to long threads (1000+
posts) will have their replies generate a new thread. We are working on
a solution for this issue."

http://groups.google.com/support/bin/static.py?page=known_issues.cs

Thank you , I didn't even know that page existed. I bet
there's an interesting story related to the bug too.

 

[Richard Bos]

Don't expect to get much sympathy from non-Googler's, Spiros.

And rightly so.

It's hard to understand why so many otherwise-intelligent
people can't comprehend that Google Groups is a major
convenience, or even necessity, for many people.

Oh, we comprehend that. Can you comprehend that Google's refusal to
follow Usenet rules that have been around for longer than Google, or
possibly even since before Google's founders were born, makes it rather
antipathetic to those of us who like Usenet better than a web board,
which is what Google is trying to turn it into?

It is ironic, however, that Best Programmers in the World, Inc.
has so much trouble avoiding the appearance of Brain Damage
in its Groups interface.

No. It is many things, but ironic it is not.

Richard

 

[Richard Bos]

"We are aware of an issue where users replying to long threads (1000+
posts) will have their replies generate a new thread. We are working on
a solution for this issue."

That says it all, really. This is an issue which would not have existed
in _any_ sanely designed system. Google Groups Beta is designed broken,
and now _they_ have an "issue", and _we_ have a problem. Arseholes.

Richard

 

[Dik T. Winter]

>
> Oh, we comprehend that.

What I do not comprehend is that it is a necessity. Many browsers have a
good interface to real news servers and there are quite a few free news
servers around.

 

[Dik T. Winter]

>
> That says it all, really. This is an issue which would not have existed
> in _any_ sanely designed system. Google Groups Beta is designed broken,
> and now _they_ have an "issue", and _we_ have a problem. Arseholes.

The strangest about this is that this has come up only fairly recently.

But it appears that Google is also starting to tie in people to their
services. I made a purchase through Google-checkout and the result was
payment (of course), but also that I was tied in as a member to
Google-groups. I had to remove quite a few cookies before getting the
standard interface again.

 

[James Dow Allen]

... Can you comprehend that Google's refusal to
follow Usenet rules that have been around for longer than Google, or
possibly even since before Google's founders were born, makes it rather
antipathetic to those of us who like Usenet better than a web board,
which is what Google is trying to turn it into?

Undesirable behavior by Google, and the convenience/necessity
of its interface for some users are different issues. Many
of us object to Microsoft practices but use or even develop
for their systems anyway. (BTW, IMO, Google and Microsoft are
not particularly more greedy or malicious than other companies,
just more successful at it -- this is postliterate American
capitalism: get used to it or start a revolution.)

What I do not comprehend is that it is a necessity.  Many browsers have a
good interface to real news servers and there are quite a few free news
servers around.

I can use a server at Internet cafes because I always bring a
flashdrive along. Others may be a bit behind the times.
As for "quite a few free news servers", I'll take your word
for it, *but* in past when I've looked for such I've tried
servers from a long list, wasted considerable time to find
one that worked at all, then had one of those disappear just
a week or two later.

I'm posting from Google now, although I brought my flashdrive
with xnews, because it is *much* more convenient.

James Dow Allen

 

[Spiros Bousbouras]

Can you comprehend that Google's refusal to
follow Usenet rules that have been around for longer than Google, or
possibly even since before Google's founders were born, makes it rather
antipathetic to those of us who like Usenet better than a web board,
which is what Google is trying to turn it into?

Which Usenet rules does Google not follow ? And in what way is it
trying to turn Usenet into a message board ? On the contrary by
making Usenet known to a much larger audience Google strengthens
Usenet.

 

[Spiros Bousbouras]

The strangest about this is that this has come up only fairly recently.

It's a strange bug altogether which is one reason I mentioned it.
I'm dying to know how it came about.

But it appears that Google is also starting to tie in people to their
services. I made a purchase through Google-checkout and the result was
payment (of course), but also that I was tied in as a member to
Google-groups. I had to remove quite a few cookies before getting the
standard interface again.

So you actually found an online merchant using Google checkout ?
I've yet to encounter one. But I don't see in what way you were
tied in.

 

[JosephKK]

And rightly so.


Oh, we comprehend that. Can you comprehend that Google's refusal to
follow Usenet rules that have been around for longer than Google, or
possibly even since before Google's founders were born, makes it rather
antipathetic to those of us who like Usenet better than a web board,
which is what Google is trying to turn it into?


No. It is many things, but ironic it is not.

Richard

I looked at their google groups / Usenet interface the other day. So
long and google gets ad revenue for each post the spam will continue.
!!!

 

[JosephKK]

The strangest about this is that this has come up only fairly recently.

But it appears that Google is also starting to tie in people to their
services. I made a purchase through Google-checkout and the result was
payment (of course), but also that I was tied in as a member to
Google-groups. I had to remove quite a few cookies before getting the
standard interface again.

And some people wonder why i categorically reject all cookies.
"

 

[JosephKK]

Undesirable behavior by Google, and the convenience/necessity
of its interface for some users are different issues. Many
of us object to Microsoft practices but use or even develop
for their systems anyway. (BTW, IMO, Google and Microsoft are
not particularly more greedy or malicious than other companies,
just more successful at it -- this is postliterate American
capitalism: get used to it or start a revolution.)

I know you are trying to say something with "postliterate" but i
cannot figure out what it is. Are you referring to Morloch and Eloi?

 

[Dik T. Winter]

>
> So you actually found an online merchant using Google checkout ?
> I've yet to encounter one. But I don't see in what way you were
> tied in.

Yup, I found one. But when they are giving out cookies so that every next
time that you go to google groups they do as if you are signed up for it,
I think they tie you in. It is that I did suspect cookies...