OT: more Google groups brain damage

[Spiros Bousbouras]

And some people wonder why i categorically reject all cookies.

I would too if not for the fact that many sites won't work correctly
without them. An acceptable compromise is configuring my browser
to erase all cookies when I close it.

 

[JosephKK]

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.

Gosh, let's see. It is trying to make it into a popularity contest
like facebook, youtube and similar. It is the number 1 provider of
Usenet spam, beating out all others combined. And remember, the spam
counts toward the popularity. Others are invited to add other ways,
personally i find this quite enough already.
<>

 

[Spiros Bousbouras]

Gosh, let's see. It is trying to make it into a popularity contest
like facebook, youtube and similar.

If you're referring to the fact that Googlegroups provides a rating
feature is there a Usenet rule which says that no interface to
Usenet should provide a rating feature ? Beyond that I consider the
statement "trying to make it" highly exaggerated. If Google somehow
managed to gain control of a large percentage of newservers and
changed the content of what people posted when passing through
those servers then you might say that Google tries to turn Usenet
into whatever. As things stand Google only controls their own
interface so they cannot turn Usenet into anything even if they
wanted.

I've never used Facebook but youtube has no connection that I can
see with a popularity contest.

It is the number 1 provider of
Usenet spam, beating out all others combined.

I would want to see some statistics from a reliable source to be
convinced of that but even if we accept it's true are there Usenet
rules which specify what measures against spam an entity providing
Usenet access should undertake ? Does Google on the average take
less measures against spam compared to other entities providing
Usenet access ?

And remember, the spam
counts toward the popularity.

It does ? I would have thought it counts against it and a lot too.
I'm mainly tempted to switch away from Googlegroups when I go to
the page of most recent posts and see a large percentage of them
being spam.

Others are invited to add other ways,
personally i find this quite enough already.

When I asked about rules I was thinking of specific RFCs or at
least unwritten rules which many people feel are established
netiquette and which Google doesn't follow. I assumed that's the
kind of rules Richard Bos had in mind when he said earlier about
Google not following Usenet rules. Here's an example of the kind of
thing I was looking for : if every time one posted from
Googlegroups a 5 lines signature was automatically added to their
message that would qualify. Or if the headers of messages coming
from Googlegroups did not conform to the required format that would
also qualify. The Google interface is irrelevant unless there are
Usenet rules specifying what anyone's interface to Usenet should or
should not look like or behave. As for people posting through
Googlegroups breaking rules it's debatable to what extent one
should hold Google responsible. I was thinking of stuff Google
has direct control over.

 

[Default User]

I would want to see some statistics from a reliable source to be
convinced of that

Oh, come on. Do a minor amount of research.

but even if we accept it's true are there Usenet
rules which specify what measures against spam an entity providing
Usenet access should undertake ? Does Google on the average take
less measures against spam compared to other entities providing
Usenet access ?

In the past, usenet providers that served as spam portals were subject
to the Usenet Death Penalty. Unfortunately, you now have the 9000 pound
gorilla as the perpetrator. I don't know that anyone has the balls to
try to UDP Google.




Brian

 

[Beej Jorgensen]

Oh, come on. Do a minor amount of research.

I don't know of a good page with stats, but the first three (out of
three) spams I looked at on clc all came from Google. It's a pity,
because I think Google has a totally fine web interface to Usenet.

Google needs an easy-to-use "SPAM" button so the users can help flag
posts. It would also be nice if Google didn't distribute new articles
on new accounts immediately, but waited until they'd been viewed by
so-many GG users and not flagged. I'm sure these ideas have practical
issues, but it would be a start!

-Beej

 

[jameskuyper]

I don't know of a good page with stats, but the first three (out of
three) spams I looked at on clc all came from Google. It's a pity,
because I think Google has a totally fine web interface to Usenet.

Google needs an easy-to-use "SPAM" button so the users can help flag
posts.

Click on "More Options", and then select "Report this Message".

 

[Andrew Poelstra]

Click on "More Options", and then select "Report this Message".

If that 'Report' link is connected to anything like the reporting system
Google is using for Blogger, it's completely useless, if not
counterproductive.

See
http://georgereisman.com/blog/2009/05/google-relentsfinally.html

for example.

 

[Spiros Bousbouras]

Oh, come on. Do a minor amount of research.

Search using Google you mean ? :-D

Well I just googled for ``"usenet spam"'' and ``"usenet spam"
statistics''. Nothing useful on the first page of either search.

In the past, usenet providers that served as spam portals were subject
to the Usenet Death Penalty. Unfortunately, you now have the 9000 pound
gorilla as the perpetrator. I don't know that anyone has the balls to
try to UDP Google.

Others' lack of cohones is not Google's fault. Why are people
reluctant to issue a UDP against Google anyway ?

Occasionally I have seen spam which looks like kiddie porn. I
haven't noticed whether it originates from googlegroups but if it
does then one possibility is to report it to the relevant
authorities and have them take it up with Google. That might make a
difference. I will consider doing it if such spam appears again.

 

[Spiros Bousbouras]

Click on "More Options", and then select "Report this Message".

I've done it on a number of occasions. It never made any
difference. It makes me wonder whether such reports get
forwarded to /dev/null

 

[Default User]

I don't know of a good page with stats, but the first three (out of
three) spams I looked at on clc all came from Google. It's a pity,
because I think Google has a totally fine web interface to Usenet.

Google needs an easy-to-use "SPAM" button so the users can help flag
posts. It would also be nice if Google didn't distribute new articles
on new accounts immediately, but waited until they'd been viewed by
so-many GG users and not flagged. I'm sure these ideas have practical
issues, but it would be a start!

My service, news.individual.net, is able to filter out almost all spam
before it gets to me. If they can do it, so could Google if they
wanted. They just don't care.




Brian

 

[Default User]

Search using Google you mean ? :-D

No, just go to a newsgroup listing at Google and check the spam post
headers.

Others' lack of cohones is not Google's fault.

The spam is their fault. They shouldn't rely on someone else to force
them to do the right thing. Google could try live up to their motto,
"Don't be evil".





Brian

 

[Spiros Bousbouras]

No, just go to a newsgroup listing at Google and check the spam post
headers.

In order to get reliable statistics from this it would need to be
done over a long period of time and preferably for many groups.
Doing it "manually" would take too much time and would be too
boring. Perhaps someone has written a script to do it.

The spam is their fault.

No the spam is the spammers' fault although if Google is not
undertaking reasonable measures to stop it then it deseves some
blame for that.

They shouldn't rely on someone else to force
them to do the right thing.

I agree with this as a philosophical principle but I don't know
what the right thing is practically speaking and why Google is not
doing it. Google is quite good at filtering email spam so it's a
bit of a puzzle why their methods aren't as effective with Usenet
spam. I don't buy the "they don't care" theory. Spam means negative
publicity for Google and it reduces usage of their Usenet interface
which I imagine reduces their ad revenue.

Google could try live up to their motto,
"Don't be evil".

I'm guessing the motto refers to not doing evil rather than not
doing enough to prevent others from doing evil. Apart from that ,
"evil" is too strong a term for spamming.

 

[Keith Thompson]

I'm guessing the motto refers to not doing evil rather than not
doing enough to prevent others from doing evil.

Taking some action to avoid helping others do evil would be nice too
(i.e., not allowing their own servers be used to propagate spam).

Apart from that ,
"evil" is too strong a term for spamming.

I disagree. Spam imposes great cost and inconvenience on others for
the sake of some probably minor benefit for the spammer.

 

[JosephKK]

I've done it on a number of occasions. It never made any
difference. It makes me wonder whether such reports get
forwarded to /dev/null

They are redirected to "A vote for this post".

 

[JosephKK]

On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 05:45:21 -0700 (PDT), Spiros Bousbouras

Get a real news server and a real news client.

No. Usenet is its own place, unlike any other on earth or cyberspace.
Google is a pollution source.

If you're referring to the fact that Googlegroups provides a rating
feature is there a Usenet rule which says that no interface to
Usenet should provide a rating feature ?

Usenet norms (decades of Usenet behavior that has been shown to work),
duh, that is what i am trying to tell you.

Beyond that I consider the
statement "trying to make it" highly exaggerated. If Google somehow
managed to gain control of a large percentage of newservers and
changed the content of what people posted when passing through
those servers then you might say that Google tries to turn Usenet
into whatever. As things stand Google only controls their own
interface so they cannot turn Usenet into anything even if they
wanted.

Your arrogant ignorance shames you.

I've never used Facebook but youtube has no connection that I can
see with a popularity contest.

Your arrogant ignorance shames you, again.

I would want to see some statistics from a reliable source to be
convinced of that but even if we accept it's true are there Usenet
rules which specify what measures against spam an entity providing
Usenet access should undertake ? Does Google on the average take
less measures against spam compared to other entities providing
Usenet access ?

It bites me in the butt every day. I only need pay slight attention
to the amount of spam in the Usenet groups i read, and i see blocks of
10 to 50 spams in a row from google, and only occasional others. And
the most spammed groups (specifically from google) are the ones they
rate as most popular.

It does ? I would have thought it counts against it and a lot too.
I'm mainly tempted to switch away from Googlegroups when I go to
the page of most recent posts and see a large percentage of them
being spam.

Damn right it does, they get an advertising penny for every one they
let get posted. What a conflict of interests(, or not).

BTW, there are free real news readers and free real news servers, try
them; i bet you will like the proper threadiness. Some simple
searches will better inform you.

When I asked about rules I was thinking of specific RFCs or at
least unwritten rules which many people feel are established
netiquette and which Google doesn't follow. I assumed that's the
kind of rules Richard Bos had in mind when he said earlier about
Google not following Usenet rules. Here's an example of the kind of
thing I was looking for : if every time one posted from
Googlegroups a 5 lines signature was automatically added to their
message that would qualify. Or if the headers of messages coming
from Googlegroups did not conform to the required format that would
also qualify. The Google interface is irrelevant unless there are
Usenet rules specifying what anyone's interface to Usenet should or
should not look like or behave. As for people posting through
Googlegroups breaking rules it's debatable to what extent one
should hold Google responsible. I was thinking of stuff Google
has direct control over.

Google could exert control over the spam posts. There is no way in
hell that they will, while they profit from it.

 

[Guest]

hello?


No.  Usenet is its own place, unlike any other on earth or cyberspace.
Google is a pollution source.

That makes no sense to me. What does "Usenet is its own place"
actually
mean? How does your rather odd response address the question?

I agree google lets too much spam though. But I don't understand this
"own place" stuff.


agreed. I think the star system is silly and I ignore it but
I don't see how googlegroups makes usernet into facebok.
I use facebook and I wasn't aware of a rating system.

Usenet norms (decades of Usenet behavior that has been shown to work),
duh, that is what i am trying to tell you.
badly.



Your arrogant ignorance shames you.

so explain.

You don't google. ok. If someone asks you justify your feelings
with reference to standards why do you get to be rude to people?

<snip>

 

[jameskuyper]

They are redirected to "A vote for this post".

Funny - but false. Give it a try, if you don't believe me. Votes
normally affect a person's profile almost immediately, and re-loading
the message after making a vote on it shows the effect of the vote.
Reporting a message doesn't change the displayed rating, nor does it
increase the number of votes mentioned in the spammer's profile.

 

[Spiros Bousbouras]

On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 05:45:21 -0700 (PDT), Spiros Bousbouras



Damn right it does, they get an advertising penny for every one they
let get posted.

So you're saying that the spammers have an agreement with Google
and they pay Google some money (1 penny ?) for every spam post they
make through Googlegroups , yes ? That's a serious accusation , can
you back it up ?

And whose popularity are you talking about ? Initially I thought you
meant the popularity of Googlegroups but now I have doubts.

 

[JosephKK]

My service, news.individual.net, is able to filter out almost all spam
before it gets to me. If they can do it, so could Google if they
wanted. They just don't care.




Brian

Google actually gets advertising money for every post. Every post
including spam. Now, how do you think they will act?

 

[James Kuyper]

JosephKK wrote:
....

Google actually gets advertising money for every post. Every post
including spam. Now, how do you think they will act?

I'm curious - who's paying them, and why? The only advertisements I see
when using groups.google.com are the ones that appear in spam, and I
ignore those.