Google search results include Usenet posts. Click on the link and the
post displays, but the Usenet newsgroup and date information aren't
all that noticeable unless you read carefully. Click on the Reply
button and if you're already signed into your Google account, you can
post your reply without thinking any more about it.
Google makes it easy to be an idiot. I'm not being sarcastic. I
recently took part in a discussion of a test of website functionality
for researchers. To the utter frustration and despair of the people
who'd spent all their time crafting the site, when it was live-tested
it on average people, all but one of the test subjects ignored *all*
of the research tools and links to still more tools on the site.
Instead, they just went to Google, which led to all of them but the
one who used the site failing the usability challenge. Since they
weren't using the proper tools, they were unable to locate any of the
information they'd been tasked to find.
Google is good for a lot of stuff, but it doesn't cover everything.
Problem is, people are so habituated to it, they can't even spend five
minutes looking at a site built specifically for finding information
in order to select the best tool for the particular job.
| I've never once seen them respond after their "necro-post". I don't
| know how they found Google Groups in the first place in order to do it,
| but I'm convinced that they are so clueless that they will never find
| it again or see any follow-ups.
Yes, that may be. There's a coincidental, similar
thread going in another group. Someone recommended
filtering GG posts. I don't have filters on my email
program, and there are some legitimate posters
using GG, anyway. That whole idea of "killfiling"
never seemed like a workable approach to me. But
I would like to understand better how these people
[mis]understand what they're doing. It would be nice
if some could be helped to understand the possibilities
On Sunday, June 8, 2014 12:21:55 PM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
OMG. What an inferior newsreader you have! No filters?
Replace it immediately and get a real newsreader. What's wrong
with you? Don't you know how newsgroups work?
and there are some legitimate posters
You can start a charity. I'll donate the first .01
When it comes to Google Giggler's, you can't assume anything -
especially figuring out how to post to usenet using something other that
They know how to use a browser. Anything else (like a dedicated usenet
client) is obviously a crap-shoot.
So, you're one of those that propagate bullshit info about AIOE I see.
I'll make the same challenge to you that I've made to others making
similar bullshit claims: Post any evidence of "illegal activity". Post
any evidence where someone has actually said that they block AIOE users
at the User-Agent level.
AIOE is one of the most restrictive NNTP server's around. You can't
cross-post to more than 3 groups, some hierarchies are prohibited from
being cross-posted between, some groups are prohibited from being
cross-posted to at all (almost anything pertaining to politics or
scorched-earth). Anything posted by AIOE users is checked by URIBL for
"banned" domains (prevents spammers from posting website URLS known to
If you want to see true usenet abuse - google itself is legendary for
allowing anyone to post anything, and is the spammer's choice for
posting garbage (both commercial, fraudulent/phishing and
Well maybe it's time to learn and understand the truth about AIOE and
stop spreading FUD about it. For all it's restrictions (which I
occasionally and unknowingly bump up against) I use it exclusively
because no prior registration is required.
| So, you're one of those that propagate bullshit info about AIOE I see.
| I'll make the same challenge to you that I've made to others making
| similar bullshit claims: Post any evidence of "illegal activity". Post
| any evidence where someone has actually said that they block AIOE users
| at the User-Agent level.
I'm not taking a position about aioe. I'm neither
for nor against their business or their operating model.
I'm just not including it as a recommendation because
a number of other people have talked about it being
a problem. Were those people wrong? I don't know.
From your somewhat nasty reaction I'm guessing there
might be some sort of battle over aioe that I'm not
I don't know the facts, and I have no way of deciding
whether you or the others are more accurate. But if you
have sources of neutral information about it I'd be curious
to read them.
I think a lot of them come from those cockroach "forums" that simply display
usenet posts as their own forum posts...someone searchs Google for
something, gets hits for the "forum" pertinent to his search and awaaayyy we
| What nonsense. With a client based reader, eg Outlook Express,
| one click and you're on a different newsgroup. With Goggle Groups,
| one click and I'm on a different newsgroup.
| There are some difference. With GG, I can access it from anywhere.
| I don't have to go figure out how a newsreader works, which one
| I want, download it and maybe pay for it, install it, etc. And I
| don't have to figure out which newsreader I'm going to connect to.
| It's like using 20 year old technology and insisting that's the
| only correct way of doing it.
Usenet is an entirely different protocol, nntp, not designed
for webpage format (http). It's not "old technology".
I'm not going to keep arguing with you. You're taking
this issue personally without cause. As I said before, if
you want to use GG to post that's none of my concern.
Many people find it challenging to use real email or to use
a real newsreader. It requires some research and
configuration. GG apparently works for you. But simply
using GG is not the problem. The problem is that Google
is corrupting the system by linking their other services
into Usenet. In the way that they're doing it they're
confusing people and causing problems. The result is
that newsgroups get junk posts while the people posting
that junk are missing out due to being misled by Google.
(And some of those people might actually appreciate
learning about how they could take part in Usenet.)
On Sunday, June 8, 2014 12:51:47 PM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
It most certainly is old technology, it's been around relatively
unchanged for decades, while the world has moved to other technology.
The other newsgrops I've followed over the years are dead, because
people have moved to other ways of communicating.
It's with cause because you're bitching about GG, as if GG users
are all the unwashed idiots. In fact, in the current case, there isn't
any evidence that the post originated from GG. The poster
is using a traditional newsgroup service, Flashnewsgroups,
which requires a client newsreader. So, yeah I get annoyed
when you start bitching about GG and don't know WTF you're
As I said before, if
So, why should they do that if all the want to do is make one
post a year? Why do they have to use "real mail" if gmail works for
them? You keep insisting that they should read tutorials,
learn how newsgroups work, figure out which client newsreader they
want, install it (maybe pay for it), figure out which newsgroup service
they want to use (their ISP may not even offer it, so they may have
to pay for that).....
Why in the hell should they do that to make a few posts a year?
What a great way to get people interested in newsgroups. Your message
is "Heh, idiot, don't post here unless you want to do it my way"
GG apparently works for you. But simply
Nonsense. They haven't linked anything else into GG.
In the way that they're doing it they're
The only one confused here is you because you're still bitching
about GG when the poster made their post through Flashnewsgroups,
which is exactly the way you're saying they should do it.
The result is
Again just keep bitching about GG when this poster used Flashnewsgroups.
And if they made a post through GG, they can of course see that post
on GG. I see it. I can also clearly see the date of the old post
that they chose to reply to. We're not missing anything.
On Sunday, June 8, 2014 2:43:23 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
Oh, and another thing. Let's go through a typical scenario where
someone might reply to an old thread, OK? Let's say someone with
little or no newsgroup experience wants to know how to fix a garage
door spring. They use google and find a thread from 3 years ago.
Apparently most people have no problem with that and in fact I
frequently see posters here tell people who start a new thread
asking a question like that to go google and find the old ones.
So apparently that's what they are supposed to do.
OK, so they Google and find a 3 year old thread. That thread has 25 posts
that cover the subject. Lots of useful help, links to products,
etc. So, what should this poster do now? I see two methods:
They shouldn't post in that old thread. They should make a new
post, and only with a client newsreader. So, they should go figure
out what client to use, maybe pay for it, figure out which newsgroup
service to use, maybe pay for that because many ISP don't offer it.
Download and install the newsreader. Figure out how it all works and
maybe read a tutorial on newsgroups. Load the newsgroup list, select
the appropriate one, and finally start a new thread. Whereupon
someone from here is likely to say, "Google for this, because it's
been answered before......" And anyone that replies to this new
thread, is starting from scratch, all over again, without benefit of
the old thread.
They ask the follow-on question in the 3 year old thread. I see it
on GG in context with the other 25 posts with all the previous suggestions,
I can see what they're talking about. If I want to answer, I can give
an answer based on what they obviously have seen and have not seen,
without re-inventing the wheel. Apparently you can't do that, because
your client newsreader doesn't even have the posts in the old thread.
Now, which way is more productive in answering the question, both
for the person asking it and those that choose to reply?
Is it possible for you to point me to where you're seeing people discuss
AIOE as you claim. ?
Those that have what they claim to be an informed opinion of AIOE vs,
say, Maternal September are against AIOE only because it does not
require registration to post, and they invent examples why it's a "bad
thing" to run an NNTP server that way, and when pressed for examples of
"bad" postings made using AIOE - they never do.
I can tell you that those that claim AIOE is used by abusers or spammers
never end up posting examples to back up their claim, which can only
mean they want to spread FUD about AIOE.
Just how or where would you expect to find neutral information about
What you will find about AIOE (in alt.free.newsservers) is that AIOE
runs an overly-tight policy with regard to accepting posts - much
tighter than Maternal September. That alone should improve the
reputation of AIOE with regard to being a (non)-source of usenet spam.
See how you lie?
I've told you before that AIOE, if it does any tracking at all, it does
so by IP address - NOT by what posting handle someone uses.
And AIOE's posting limit (which I think is 200 over 24 hour period) is
not something that would form the basis or be included in Mayana's vague
idea of what AIOE's reputation is in the minds of some people.
Even Maternal September allows unrestricted identity-changes between
posts - using the same login user-name and password.
I'm asking again, and you will turn yellow and not answer, but I will
ask again: Post an example of "what you've read".
As I've stated, Maternal September allows you to change identities at
will, using the same posting account.
And again I dare you to post an example of "spam" posted via AIOE.
And contrary to your so-called popular belief, the use of multiple
identities is not a violation of usenet protocal at any level.
On Sunday, June 8, 2014 5:26:53 PM UTC-4, dadiOH wrote:
Of course the poster is bitching. Bitching about people making a follow
on post to an old thread. Bitching about people who don't use a client
based newsreader. Who cares? And what exactly is wrong with responding
to an old thread?
Suppose 3 years ago someone asked for a solution to a problem, it was
discussed and no one had the right answer. So, someone goes googling for
the problem, finds the thread and gives the answer that no one had. Now
anyone else googling will find it. What exactly is so bad about that?
Is it better they just ask the question all over again, instead of
people being able to see the original thread and what has been said so far?
I can see it's an old post. I can see it in the context of the original
thread. It doesn't compel me to start bitching about Google Groups, gmail,
insisting that people need to use a client based newsreader, choose a
newsgroup service, etc. just to make one post. And in this case, neither
google groups nor gmail was used to make the post.
| I think a lot of them come from those cockroach "forums" that simply
| usenet posts as their own forum posts...someone searchs Google for
| something, gets hits for the "forum" pertinent to his search and awaaayyy
I've wondered about that. I know that a lot of fake
forums repost newsgroups. But I've never seen an
outdate post by anyone who wasn't using gmail, with
their newsgroup name being their gmail email address.
On 6/7/2014 11:45 AM, andy mather rocam general contracting wrote:
Many good points above. In Nevada, workers comp went something like
this: YOU, or your client formally requested that a copy of your
insurance certificate be mailed to the client. YOU could not request a
cert from WC be sent to anyone for anything. There was no such thing as
a copy, and making a copy of a certificate was a violation of the law.
The client had the original, with expiration date on it. The client
heard directly from the WC people if you were a client in good standing
with WC, that you were current and up to date, and gave an expiration
date. The contractor could never get to touch the certificate when it
was done properly. Any contractor who produced an insurance certificate
was guilty of two crimes, one, possession of a fraudulent document, and
two, violation of contractor law re: procedures for WC insurance
Good thing. Nevada was terrible for contractor fraud. Now, if you even
OFFER to do the work, you are guilty. NO PROPOSAL OR CONTRACT is
necessary as evidence. NO MONEY has to change hands, and NO WORK has to
be performed. You can just verbally say it, and if the wrong person
hears it, or a homeowner will sign a statement that you offered to do
the work, you're ham is pretty much on the well done side.
I was a contractor for nine years, and did not have one complaint. You
do things right, and you have no problems. Funny how that works, eh?
Did several jobs for the government, and they didn't even require you
have a business license or worker's comp. You're on federal land, and
the rules of the unwashed rabble doesn't apply there. They do what they
want. And those jobs were as sweet as you can get. They were very
happy to have a competent supplier, and I was very happy to get 1.5 to
2x my usual prices, payment in about ten days. And no worries about the
Homeowners were something else. I mainly just did high end gravy
referrals of intricate work. My gravy was for 275 apartment and condo
projects. Did all of U-Haul's repairs from their rental trucks, all the
damage the garbage men did, plus lots of local furniture and water
companies who delivered and seemed to aim at the carports. It was
sweet. Most homeowners just plain couldn't afford me, but would call
back when their less than me bidding BIL, or someone new to the US left
an unfinished mess. $95 an hour for a truck and two men, but, darn,
just had two big government contracts come in, and looks like I can't do
it for at least three months, more like six. Now the sweet taste of the
low price bid is starting to ferment in the consumer's mouth, eh?
| Just look at the one you're bitching about right here, right now.
| It was not from gmail, idiot.
OK. How about slowing down a bit? You don't need to
get into a carpetbombing tantrum, filling the thread with
namecalling and insults. I haven't insulted you or sworn at you.
Why are you so quick to be mean to people, calling people
"bitching idiot"? (You also referred to the outdate-posters as
idiots.) You're so worked up that you don't seem to be able
to see that no one is attacking you in the first place. (As
the psycho-babblers like to say: "It's not about you." :)
The point of all this, at least for me, is to see if there might
be a good way to attempt reducing these dummy posts. That
requires understanding how they happen in the first place.
I see you're right about the OP. That's interesting. I saw
the top markers and didn't notice the posting source. The poster
seems to be using flashnewsgroups.com, posting through
something called Hermes. It's not clear whether that's real
newsgroup software or whether the posting originated through
a Web interface.
That still leaves the question of how this happens, which
has me very curious. The only scenario I can imagine is someone
with web-groups coming across an online reprint and of a posting
and then perhaps having a browser plugin that misleads them into
thinking it's part of an active forum and letting them post to it.
No one seems to know the answer to that mystery. I don't
see how anyone could mistakenly post to a years-old thread
through actual newsreader software.
On Monday, June 9, 2014 10:45:50 AM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
"I decided to come up with a sort of template response, in
hopes of helping some of the people lost in Google Groups
to understand the landscape.... and save the rest of us
some trouble in the process."
Yes you did. I'm not lost in Google Groups. The post was not even
made with GG and I'm sick of listening to you tell everyone how
they have to use newsgroups. Who appointed you net cop?
What a welcoming message. Someone makes a post and they get your
template response: You shouldn't use GG. You're doing it all wrong.
You should read a tutorial on newsgroups.
You should figure out what client you want to use, download it, maybe
pay for it, install it. You should figure out what newsgroup service
you want to use, maybe pay for that too. Then you should figure out
how all that works, so you can make the one and only post you care
about for this year or maybe forever. And to top it off, they get
that response, even thought they have used a conventional newsgroup
service, ie Flashnewsgroups.
If the shoe fits, wear it. In this case, here you are bitching
about Google Groups when the post you're bitching about was made
from a conventional newsgroup service, exactly like you're recommending.
I never referred to someone as an idiot because they responded
to an old post. Now if they make some rambling post that doesn't
make sense, then they may be idiots. And definitely some of those fall
into that category. But so do plenty of contemporary posts, particularly
the many OT posts that some hacks start here every day.
You're so worked up that you don't seem to be able
It's about you claiming that GG is the problem, when the post
wasn't even made from GG. I pointed that out to you, politely
but instead of acknowledging it, you just drone on.
I see, so it's OK for you to call a post "dummy", but if I
call you an idiot, for blaming GG, when the post wasn't even from
there, that's different. Go figure. I don't think
that someone restarting a 3 year old thread automatically makes
them a dummy. Again, as I've explained to you, what's better?
Someone making a fresh post, asking the same question that was
answered 2 years ago? How much of everyone's time is then wasted
answering the same questions all over again? I've seen people here
tell posters that start such a new thread to use google and search
for existing threads, because it's been answered. If you re-start
that older thread, where all the previous advice on the same question
is there for all to see?
At least I can see it. And it seems to me better than starting a
new thread, asking the same thing all over again, yet you obvioulsy
have a major problem with it. And even worse, you keep slamming GG,
when the post wasn't even made from GG. It sounds to me like your
old client-based newsreader doesn't show you the historical thread
like GG does. Yet somehow that makes GG bad?
Maybe you should figure all that out before you start bitching
about and blaming Google Groups.
You seem to think the fact that your newsreader doesn't let you see
that thread history is a great advantage. I say, it's not. With GG
I see the thread. And at least some of these folks that are re-starting
old threads even acknowledge that they know the post is old. So, they
add to an old post. So what? At best they add something and the next
person that searches for "how to fix garage door spring", will see it.
At worse, if you don't like, it just skip it.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.