Slashdot Mirror


New Google Groups in Beta

qwe writes "Google has apparently launched a new version of their Google Groups, currently in beta. It looks a lot like Gmail. One can attach a star to message threads. One can even create new groups, although they aren't actual Usenet groups."

91 of 341 comments (clear)

  1. Great by jm92956n · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now I can start alt.slashdot.first-post

    --
    An effective signature identifies a particular user amongst a base of thousands.
  2. Gmail by chamblah · · Score: 5, Informative

    And if you have a Gmail account you already have a login for the Google groups.

    1. Re:Gmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually if you have any google account you can loginto this.

      You can sign up for it at https://www.google.com/accounts/NewAccount?service =groups2&continue=http://groups-beta.google.co m/

    2. Re:Gmail by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not true...

      Blogger, AdWords, and AdSense accounts don't work there, yet...

    3. Re:Gmail by britneys+9th+husband · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wouldn't this give your email address to spammers? Gmail's spam filtering is nice and all, but I'd rather just not get the junk in the first place.

      I know, I know, just set up 2 different gmail accounts, but I don't want to pay another $20 on Ebay just to be able to post to Usenet without being spammed.

      --
      Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
    4. Re:Gmail by JWSmythe · · Score: 2, Interesting


      Actually, Gmail's spam filtering isn't all that great. I've been forwarding all my regular account's mail to my gmail account, and it misses about 3:10 messages that my mail server catches with SpamAssassin and SpamCop as the only blacklist. But hey, it's better than the other free services.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    5. Re:Gmail by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Informative
      And if you have a Gmail account you already have a login for the Google groups.

      Not a great idea. When registering to post to Usenet using Google Groups you must use a working email address to get the confirmation. And when you post that same address is posted along with your messages; you have no option even to obfuscate it. So within two days that account is jammed with spam and viruses. Fortunately I used a throwaway account to do that. No matter how effective the spam filtering, why expose a real address in the place that is guaranteed to get you tons of spam?

    6. Re:Gmail by MrWa · · Score: 4, Funny
      Well, if you use your GMail account to sign up for Google Groups, their highly touted and tested spam filtering should auto-magically make that spam disappear! And with 1gig of storage, tons of spam should be no worry!

      Come one, come all! Sign up for the new Googleweb now! Email! News! Shopping! Message boards! You can do it all at your non-portal, non-access provider, lean, mean, searching machine, website! No need to go anywhere else - we've got it all here! (some delay while our cache is updated.)

    7. Re:Gmail by kinema · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually I post to Usenet all the time via Google Groups with out any address obfuscation and I have yet to have any spam slip the Gmail's filters.

    8. Re:Gmail by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While I like having a gmail account and use it occassionally, I do prefer to stick with my standard pop account, logging in and out of google can be quite frustrating.

      Who logs in? I just leave GMail up all the time. If a new message arrives, the title of the Tab (or browser) will show "GMail (1)". I've also made http://gmail.google.com a toolbar link for those rare occasions that I have to restart my browser.

    9. Re:Gmail by amber_of_luxor · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sign up for a couple mailing lists -- that seemed to generate enough usage for me to have accounts to give away three days after I started using gmail.

      I'm getting roughly 100 messages per hour on my GMail account. I haven't seen any invites yet.

      Pouts.

      Amber

      --
      Wind Beneath Thy Wings
    10. Re:Gmail by britneys+9th+husband · · Score: 3, Funny

      Invites are based on how much the account is used?

      Here's what you do: Using Ebay tends to generate a lot of emails. So, when you get invites, sell them on Ebay, and the email that this generates causes you to get more invites, which you then sell on Ebay, etc. etc. etc.

      Fuck working, fuck the stock market, selling gmail invites on ebay is the key to early retirement.

      --
      Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
    11. Re:Gmail by klui · · Score: 4, Informative

      You should use https://gmail.google.com. Your entire session is encrypted.

    12. Re:Gmail by Hobbex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nor do Orkut accounts.

      It is clear that Google are attempting to start a single "Google account" system, which Gmail and now Groups 2 uses, but they still have a long way to go.

    13. Re:Gmail by yohan1701 · · Score: 2, Informative
      And when you post that same address is posted along with your messages; you have no option even to obfuscate it.

      Something interesting to note. I mosted a message yesteryday with google groups. My email address shows normally however when I went to groups 2 to look up the same message. The email address was obfuscated with underscores. Click on show options to view the email address

    14. Re:Gmail by darkmeridian · · Score: 2, Informative
      Actually, Gmail's spam filtering isn't all that great. I've been forwarding all my regular account's mail to my gmail account, and it misses about 3:10 messages that my mail server catches with SpamAssassin and SpamCop as the only blacklist. But hey, it's better than the other free services.


      Jesus, people, can you hear yourselves speak? Of course the spam filtering is going to suck when you FORWARD the mail to gmail from YOUR E-MAIL ACCOUNT. The headers and such will be the same as many non-spam messages. Duh.

      Will
      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
  3. This is great because it's Google by Real+Troll+Talk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Nothing was greater than when Google bought out Delphi and took over the largest USENET archive of all-time.

    Google always does things the right way without ruining the user experience or their wallets.

    In Google We Trust...

    (P.S. I have three Gmail invites anyone up for one -- I already gave away 5 to friends/family?)

    --

    If you liked my post,
    1. Re:This is great because it's Google by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Informative

      That wasn't Delphi that Google bought... it was Deja (formerly known as DejaNews) who they aquired.

    2. Re:This is great because it's Google by Ravadill · · Score: 2, Informative

      I got invited a few weeks ago, 24hrs later I got 3 invites, then a week after that another 3. AFAIK people on google owned blog sites got 25 or so. It's part of an effort to 1. get more people on to test gmail, and 2. reduce the chance of people sellign them on ebay for large amounts of money.

    3. Re:This is great because it's Google by 1u3hr · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Nothing was greater than when Google bought out Delphi and took over the largest USENET archive of all-time. Google always does things the right way without ruining the user experience or their wallets.

      Actually, the original dejanews was better (before they got desperate and tried to become a portal). They respected the referrers headers and had largely correct threading. Google lumps all posts together with the same "Subject:" header, even if they're years apart. Also deja wouldn't let you respond to an old message (a month, I think), whereas I often see people who've obviously found a post with a Google search and responded to it, not noticing that it's a few years old.

      Also, Google has picked up some groups on servers like Adobe.com and presents them as if they were normal newsgroups. However, they're not, and though Google lets you make a post to them, no one will answwer becasue they only see those posted via Adobe.

      I'm not really happy that Google is blending their own groups with Usenet. Too many already can't tell the difference between web forums and Usenet.

    4. Re:This is great because it's Google by alexo · · Score: 3, Insightful


      > see lots of replies to several-month old posts in the groups I frequent.

      Did it occur to you that they were done with a normal usenet client?

  4. Old news... by sH4RD · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I read about this a couple weeks ago. What took it so long to appear on Slashdot? (maybe I should have submitted it :P) Anyhow, an improvement over Google Groups, but I almost LIKE the older, lighter version.

    --
    WASTE - The Secure P2P
  5. Promising yet limited... by chrispyman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While the idea of a GMailish like system for newsgroups is a good thing, the whole thing seems limited by the fact that new groups can only be viewed using Google Groups, which gives them less readership.

    1. Re:Promising yet limited... by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Interesting

      On the other hand, Google seems to be in the business of only getting into things they can be #1 at doing.... it's quite possible that Google Groups will become the most read of such discussion sites after this goes live.

      Besides, I'm sure all of these Groups will be completely included in Google's index, while Yahoo! Groups and Delphi Forums and other such sites are not because they usually require a signon to see most of the content.

    2. Re:Promising yet limited... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Informative

      You do know that "Google Groups" is actually just a front end for USENET, and that USENET predates Google.com by about 15 years?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:Promising yet limited... by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Indeed. Imagine if microsoft did the same thing, slashdot would be teeming with irate geeks yelling about them trying to "embrace and extend" USENET. I know Google has a "do no evil" dictum, but I'm hesitant to put much faith in the goodwill of any corporation.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Promising yet limited... by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I wouldn't rule out the idea that google is trying to become the "new" usenet here, and I actually believe they could pull it off. Rumors have abounded for years that usenet was going to just fade away (of course it hasn't) because people didn't like the old-school ways of accessing it.

      Unless they allow massive binaries, they're not going to replace real Usenet. And as most Usenet binaries are porn or warez, it seems unlikely Google will.

    5. Re:Promising yet limited... by LegendLength · · Score: 2, Funny
      Imagine if microsoft did the same thing, slashdot would be teeming with irate geeks yelling about them trying to "embrace and extend"
      So you would trust a convicted murderer to babysit your children as much as someone with no bad record?

      Of course your answer is yes going by your logic. Otherwise you must be an irate geek!
    6. Re:Promising yet limited... by CaptainTux · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I wouldn't rule out the idea that google is trying to become the "new" usenet here, and I actually believe they could pull it off.

      As a supporting example, I know at least 30-40 people who have told me "Oh, I read this thing on Google Groups" to which I sometimes replied "Yeah, Usenet can be great" and their response is "What is Usenet? This was on Google!"

      Google is doing to Usenet what MS has done to the whole OS concept for a lot of people. Many people don't even realize there *are* other operating systems aside from MS Windows. In this case, many people don't realize there is a seperation between Google and Usenet. They don't understand that all Google does is provide an interface to a *much* older network that has been around since before many of them were even born. *That* my friends is strong branding. Google might not be muddying the waters on purpose but it's still pretty scary isn't it?

      --
      Anthony Papillion
      Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
      "Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
    7. Re:Promising yet limited... by Scarblac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unless they allow massive binaries, they're not going to replace real Usenet.

      Fuck binaries, binares aren't the real Usenet. They're what's killing the real Usenet. On a technical level, Usenet is totally unsuitable for massive binaries, and it's getting harder and harder to make it do its actual job (letting people send text messages to newsgroups and contact other people). Fuck binaries.

      Much the same holds for IRC and its warez kiddies.

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
    8. Re:Promising yet limited... by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, that dictum should hold OK until right about the time they finally go public. Then it's shareholders, shareholders, shareholders.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  6. Single Signon... coming soon to Google. by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How many Google Accounts does one need? Google presently maintains unrelated signons for...

    - Google AdWords (to buy ads with Google)
    - Google AdSense (for webmasters who want to show Google's ads)
    - Google Answers (their rather obscure paid researcher solution)
    - Free SiteSearch (for webmasters who want a custom colorset when users use a Google box on their site)
    - Google API (for programmers who want to use Google via SOAP)
    - GMail (the hot webmail beta test)
    - Google Groups Beta (the new service we're talking about)
    - Blogger (the blog site they aquired)

    Yahoo and MSN/Passort of course have the privacy implications of there being a single-signon accross a wide network of websites some of which are operated by partner companies... but Google is developing the reverse problem. As you move from one service of Google to another, and the user may very well have different passwords at each of the logon points. Very confusing, and an annoyance to users.

    The good news is that Google appears to be in the process of merging these databases for the free services and an account created today for one free services now gets access to all of them except GMail. They are showing signs that they intend on getting AdWords and AdSense into that system as well. Hopefully we'll just need one google.com cookie to get everything Google has soon...

    1. Re:Single Signon... coming soon to Google. by gmuslera · · Score: 5, Informative
      You are forgettin one: Google Accounts, where you have a "single signon" for most of those services.

      And Orkut too, btw.

    2. Re:Single Signon... coming soon to Google. by coupland · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While I agree with your comment and the sentiment, below is a facetious summary of recent single-sign-in comments:

      - Google sucks because they require multiple signons for every service they offer, and it's incovenient.
      - Passport rocks because you sign in only once for everything.
      - Passport sucks because they are Big Brother and they track you from site to site.
      - Google rocks because they don't maintain a massive customer-tracking database.

      Basically this boils down to a privacy vs. simplicity debate. Simplicity affects privacy and vice-versa. It's impossible to please everyone, although -- if I may -- Google has not been found guilty of abusing a monopoly. :P

    3. Re:Single Signon... coming soon to Google. by DAldredge · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Notice how when you go to gmail.com it redirects you to gmail.google.com? They do that so they can read cookies from *.google.com.

      That's tracking :->

    4. Re:Single Signon... coming soon to Google. by huge · · Score: 2, Interesting
      - Passport sucks because they are Big Brother and they track you from site to site.
      [...]
      - Google rocks because they don't maintain a massive customer-tracking database
      And you base this assumption on what?
      --
      -- Reality checks don't bounce.
  7. Google is losing its main draw: SIMPLICITY. by Qweezle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As Google keeps expanding, they are looking more and more like a simplified Yahoo!.

    Will Google put people off by losing the one thing that made them extremely individual in the big wide world of web search engines/portals?

    1. Re:Google is losing its main draw: SIMPLICITY. by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Google's Search interface hasn't changed at all. If you don't want a free e-mail account from them, they don't force one on you... in fact they've taken the opposite tact of baring the doors so that some people who want in can't get into that right now.

      This makes perfect sense from a business perspective. They're expanding into becoming a full-service portal, but making search the main focus throughout all of their offerings.

    2. Re:Google is losing its main draw: SIMPLICITY. by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, it seems to me that they're still focusing on doing just one thing, well: search. Just because they're searching email and discussion boards now doesn't really change that.

      Not quite sure how blogger fits in, unless they come up with a particularly cool way to index and search blogs.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    3. Re:Google is losing its main draw: SIMPLICITY. by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You mean google is deviating from it's core? That being search technology?

      I don't think so. All of Google's spin-offs use search technology as a key part of the product.

      Yahoo! was a portal that grew to do pretty much everything unrealted to what a portal does. They deviated from their core idea.

  8. Beta test it? by cuban321 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Beta test it?

    "Server Error
    The server encountered a temporary error and could not complete your request.

    Please try again in 30 seconds."

    Well, I did my part!

    1. Re:Beta test it? by Korgrath · · Score: 3, Funny

      I got that too! did we just... SLASHDOT GOOGLE!? *whipes a tear from his eye* this is a proud day at slashdot! I think everyone deserves a pat on the back

      --
      Theory of flight?! I'll teach you the theory of fist!!
  9. Eh.. by bmantz65 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Maybe it'll take time to get used to, but I don't really care for it. Reminds me of Yahoo Groups and the Usenet subjects' font are too big, thus not a lot of subjects displayed on the default view.

  10. Server Errors by isoprophlex · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's a Shame that

    Server Error
    The server encountered a temporary error and could not complete your request.
    Please try again in 30 seconds.

    Keep on occuring

  11. This is old... by after · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... very old.

    http://labs.google.com, check it out. The Google groups Bata have been oublic for a while now.

  12. embrace and extend anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Google is pulling a microsoft by embracing and extending Usenet.

    Once you go public you gotta turn evil, it's the law.

    No seriously, they can be sued by shareholders if they don't do it!

    Capitalism is teh...you decide.

  13. Google, Deja, and thread continuity by jwlidtnet · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've generally been pretty satisfied with Google's treatment of the old Dejanews archive. Dejanews was *great* while it existed. You didn't have to be "registered" to post to USEnet in the early stages of its existence, the "author profile" feature was always really fun, and it featured well-thought-out article tracking and thread handling. Deja.com was something else entirely (one of the strangest company metamorphosis ever, really) yet the few months post-Deja and pre-Google were really nightmarish--I didn't realize what a resource Usenet archives could be until they weren't around.

    Google's first version of "Groups" was very bare-bones, yet while its innovations were sound--in particular, Google's search function was far superior, and its extended-to-early-1980s-archive was a delight--it dropped several features that made Dejanews so much fun. And while Google insisted that it was going to gradually revamp its Groups UI, it never really did so.

    Google's big holdout (and one which they apparently were originally intending to fix back in Groups' early days) was its inefficient sorting system. Groups has a quirk/bug that Deja managed to avoid: simply put, threads with like-titles are "merged together" in the "view thread" interface, despite not necessarily having anything to do with each other. Say you're searching for information, and it comes up in a thread called "The Beatles on tape." You click on the "View thread" button. In the left pane will be a huge list of responses. But most will likely not be related to the discussion at hand, as Google throws all threads ever titled "The Beatles on tape" into that list. Deja would intelligently organize by article ID, generally preventing that sort of thing from happening, but Google never bothered to fix that design quirk despite promises to the contrary.

    From the look of the new Groups, it appears as if Google's trying to create an odd synthesis between Yahoo Groups and Usenet. I certainly hope they don't forget that providing a well-thought-out Usenet interface should be priority #1, with Yahoo-esque bells-and-whistles as a secondary concern.

    1. Re:Google, Deja, and thread continuity by danharan · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Groups has a quirk/bug that Deja managed to avoid: simply put, threads with like-titles are "merged together" in the "view thread" interface, despite not necessarily having anything to do with each other.
      Doing it by title alone would be treacherous... but then people quote each other and threads tend to be clustered around in time. That should be a relatively straightforward task.
      --
      Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
    2. Re:Google, Deja, and thread continuity by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Informative
      In the left pane will be a huge list of responses. But most will likely not be related to the discussion at hand, as Google throws all threads ever titled "The Beatles on tape" into that list.

      The reverse is also true. Any post in a thread where the Subject was changed to something else will not be included. Threads on Googlegroups aren't really threads at all.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    3. Re:Google, Deja, and thread continuity by afabbro · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I have generally been very unsatisfied with Google's treatment of the old DejaNews. As you mention, their threading is pretty weak. And they have none of the "MyDeja" (or whatever it was called) features, such as thread tracking/bookmarking, etc. There is no way to say "I want to watch this thread" (other than bookmarking it yourself). It's been so long since Deja's been gone that I don't remember all the features, but I remember the Google change as rather jarring.

      Of course, neither Google nor Deja provide the crucial killfile feature. Of the dozen or so newsgroups I regularly read, there is probably a crank in each I'd like to just never see again (in the filtering, not homicidal sense ;)

      Sigh...anyone know a good USENET provider (without having to get an NNTP feed)? My network link is business DSL so I don't get any NNTP from my provider, nor do I really feel like running innd here.

      What I'd really like is something like a web-based tin/trn ;)

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    4. Re:Google, Deja, and thread continuity by Malc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I seem to remember that Deja New's interface was frustratingly sluggish, yet it was a better interface to use than groups.google.com. This new thing from Google just doesn't work for me. It's too verbose. Then again, perhaps that's because I'm used to a real NNTP client that only display headers until I want to look furhter. There doesn't appear to be an option with this new interface to get rid of the message bodies and just show headers... although really, I would like to see a threaded view of headers. It's so much easier to skip over what you don't want if you display threaded headers only.

    5. Re:Google, Deja, and thread continuity by jwlidtnet · · Score: 2, Informative

      Try news.individual.net. It's text-only (i.e. no binaries), but it's free.

  14. Old one was better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Anyone notice how the new Google Groups munges email addresses and message-ids with random amounts of underscores and letter deletions on a per-post basis? This does nothing to deter spam harvesters, but it does make the Google Groups information much less useful outside the confines of Google. No longer can one easily reconstruct a thread or author history. Archives should not damage the information they claim to preserve.

    Of course, they still haven't done anything to fix the problem of breaking threads that shouldn't be broken or reassembling threads that aren't related, other than by having the same title.

  15. coming soon from Google.. by blue_adept · · Score: 5, Funny

    GSpot: surf and organize all your porn in convenient directories. Sort by threads, or lack thereof!

    --

    "Is this just useless, or is it expensive as well?"
  16. The Slashdot of Everything by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 2, Funny

    Add some distributed moderation and Google Groups could become the Slashdot of everything.

  17. Wow.. by bigattichouse · · Score: 3, Funny

    Slashdotted! It seems to be having errors pretty consistently... I bet someone is regretting the HTTP-REFERRER they are seeing in the logs

    --
    meh
  18. Where'd I put that post? by LqqkOut · · Score: 2, Interesting
    One can even create new groups, although they aren't actual Usenet groups.
    Many of my troubleshooting questions start with a Google web search that doesn't answer the question, and end with informative usenet threads that were left dangling months (sometimes years) ago. It would be great to have a combined google search/usenet engine so I could easily add to the collective knowledge pool (while in turn extending the livelihood of the revered ancestors of forums and discussion groups like /.)

    Would this place too much burden on the usenet servers and open up new doors for mass abuse, or would the greater access extend the richness of usenet to provide more answers that might not be worthy enough to appear on someone's website?

    --

    -- In Soviet Russia, radio listens to YOU!

  19. Embrace and extend? by gmuslera · · Score: 2, Interesting
    From where i hear that of having the monopoly of something enables you to extend it in more directions?

    If it were Microsoft i would be very scared, but, well, is Google, with a good story of openness (i.e. google API), doing things well, and getting their virtual "monopoly" doing things well, not with vapourware or doing dirty tricks to make people not follow the competence, not even limiting people on choosing the competence.

  20. Bah. by jhesse · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I can make a *real* newsgroup. Ph33R M3!

    (It's not rocket science. You just have to know the right codes to put in a newsgroup post.)

    --

    --
    "I have also mastered pomposity, even if I do say so myself." -Kryten
    1. Re:Bah. by jrockway · · Score: 3, Funny

      Please "don't" try to start a newsgroup by posting those codes as a reply.

      Actually, please go right ahead :)

      --
      My other car is first.
    2. Re:Bah. by Tackhead · · Score: 2, Funny
      > (It's not rocket science. You just have to know the right codes to put in a newsgroup post.)

      "What good is a newsgroup, alt.mister-anderson, if you are unable to convince administrators to carry it?"
      - agentsmith in alt.config

  21. Usenet by autopr0n · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unfortunetly, you can't post on usent using google, unless you're willing to post your shiny new gmail address for all the world's spammers to see :(

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  22. Re:Great. Whats next? by P.+Norbert+Ebersol · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How odd that I noticed this earlier in the day. Slashdot is slower than my own curiosity these days. For Shame.

    I had personally sent an email a few weeks back suggesting they merge gmail with groups to some extent. Bring back the glory days of dejanews.

    In fact, what is google missing nowadays when it comes to search?

    A telephone name and reverse lookup type system would be nice. yahoo has one of those I think, but it sucks. I'm sure if google were to provide one it would be fairly straightforward

    It'd be nice if google also provided babelfish.altavista.com type services. too bad google cant just buy altavista.

    a simple weather report would also be something other search engines have that google doesnt.

    what else is google missing that a good information search service should or could have?

  23. Not the first time by timealterer · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, Google Groups 2 was already in beta for awhile a few months ago, but then they took it down.

    --
    - Allen Pike
    Altering time, one time at a time.
  24. Re:Great. Whats next? by elb · · Score: 5, Informative
    A telephone name and reverse lookup type system would be nice. yahoo has one of those I think, but it sucks. I'm sure if google were to provide one it would be fairly straightforward. It'd be nice if google also provided babelfish.altavista.com type services.

    you mean like this or like this?

    or perhaps a translation tool?

    try these too.

  25. Re:Great. Whats next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    It'd be nice if google also provided babelfish.altavista.com type services. too bad google cant just buy altavista.
    Yeah, that would be really useful.
  26. Most posters are missing the point by batkiwi · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is to compete with yahoo groups, and the old egroups when it existed. It's not meant to have anything to do with usenet. It lets you host an email listserv-type-thing but with a web presence too, without having to have your own server.

    1. Re:Most posters are missing the point by hawaiian717 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, YahooGroups is eGroups... Yahoo bought and renamed it.

      --
      End of Line.
  27. This story is a dupe by theskeptic · · Score: 5, Informative

    May 13.

    Anyways, I have tested a few google groups, its an odd combination of usenet and yahoo groups. Not planning on doing much with them unless google adds more features.

  28. G$$gle by Lifix · · Score: 2, Interesting

    With google approaching its IPO, I have little doubt that more of google's services (groups directories) and web utilities (google bar / google button) will undergo "improvements." These improvements will certainly change the services and make them more commercial. We have seen gmail, which is, as far as I am concerned, the most commercial implementation of any free e-mail service (advertising based on keywords in e-mail).

    Google has brought us a great search engine, and a great set of tools. I am a firm believer in their services and products, despite the commercial implementations. One of google's guiding principals has been "do no evil" and we can only hope that this principal stays the same once google becomes public. Just my $.02. I will of course continue using google every day.

    --
    In nature, there are neither rewards or punishments, there are only consequences.
  29. Improved searching? by macdaddy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I hope they improve the searching options a bit. I regularly search NANAS or NANAE (new.admin.net-abuse.sightings/email) for a domain I suspect of spamming. Unfortunately the period is ommited from the search strings, so a search for spammer.com also matches notaspammer.net and huntdownandflogspammers.org. I would love full regex abilities. I'd actually pay for good Google Groups access.

  30. Who owns the content? by Hans+Lehmann · · Score: 4, Interesting
    ...although they aren't actual Usenet groups."

    That's the part that worries me. I typed my first Usenet post over ten years ago, shortly after getting my first internet account (yeah, I know, I was on AOL, but we were all young and stupid once.) What struck me about Usenet was the properties that I soon learned applied to the Internet as a whole: Nobody owns Usenet or its content, nobody can easily regulate or censor Usenet, and Usenet tends to find its way around any distruptions in service (since it's not all stored on one giant server.) One day DajaNews started collecting and saving Usenet posts, making them available through their web site. I found that idea disturbing, sort of like when I saw my first Canter & Segal spam. I quickly realized, however, that given enough disk space and bandwidth I too could archive all the chatter and discourse that is Usenet, and there was nothing that anyone could do to stop me. Usenet discussions could theoretically be made immune to virtual book burning.

    DejaNews was eventually bought by Google, which continues to archive most of the non-binary groups, as well as provide a web-based portal to Usenet. It does not, however, have the only copy of Usenet. Other companies like Yahoo, Delphi, ( and even Slashdot) have created their own user group systems, accessable only from their servers, and viewable only with a web browser (after all, what good is the Internet if you can't put banner ads on it?) If you don't like the way that your newsreader sorts & displays, you can get a different one, or even write your own. If you don't like the spam posts that Delphi weaves among regular ones, or the spam page that they present to you before allowing you to see a group, tough sh*t. You'll read Delphi postings the way they want you to , or you won't read them at all. If Delphi goes belly up, all their archived posts could go to the highest bidder, or maybe just disappear completely.

    Google has always worn the white hats, so far. If they become as popular with these groups that "aren't actual Usenet groups." as they've gotten with their search engine, what happens if Usenet slowly dissappears when everyone jumps on the Googler bandwagon? What happens if this central database, owned by a single company, is no longer freely accessable?

    BTW, I highly recommend GigaNews Usenet service. I've used them for about 5 years now; good consistant service, & they never tried to pull anything sneaky.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  31. This news is old... very old. by tkcom · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've been using the new Groups 2 for months. Where has /. been? Mars, perhaps?

  32. Re:Ah yes, BUT... by YowzaTheYuzzum · · Score: 2, Informative

    And you might want to check out this one.

  33. Can also use news aggregator with groups beta by mpn14tech · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The nice thing about the google groups beta is that you can track your favorite usenet group using a news aggregator that supports atom.

    The only downside I have found is when you select the article you do not get an option to view the article in context like you get if you are doing an ordinary search. Hopefully they will fix that.

  34. address mangling sucks by Jamie+Zawinski · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I just sent this to groups-support@google.com:

    Please don't mangle email addresses in Google Groups!

    I guess you are doing this because of some misguided belief that it will help with spam, but really all it does is decrease the utility of the internet as a communications medium. I do not hide my email address because I want people to be able to contact me, and the new Google Groups beta destroys the email addresses that I quite intentionally put in my messages. This is bad. Please don't do it.

    Here's what the old way looked like: (old way)
    And here's the new way: (new way)

    What I consider bugs in the new way are:

    1. destruction of email addresses in From, Sender, etc headers;

    2. destruction of email addresses in the message body;

    3. destruction of message IDs in the headers (because sometimes message IDs look like email addresses, you mangle them -- even though it's guarenteed that no email addresses will ever appear in the References or Message-ID headers.)

    4. that the returned document is of type text/html instead of type text/plain. It was a good feature of the old system that the "Original Format" link returned a plain text version of the original, tabs and all. Sometimes you want to get at the message as it was actually posted, and not at some marked up approximation thereof.

    Other than that, it looks very nice!

    1. Re:address mangling sucks by strabo · · Score: 2, Funny
      I just sent this to groups-support@google.com:

      Please don't mangle email addresses in Google Groups!

      Perhaps you should have sent your comments to gro__ps_-__up__por_t@goo__le.c__m

    2. Re:address mangling sucks by Temposs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It seems like all the suggestions given in your email could be made into options in the Google Groups interface. I think some people might prefer the way Google handles these features, so I wouldn't consider them bugs per se, but simply that they need to add functionality to change a lot of things in the display method, these being some of them.

      Google has to be very careful in their pre-IPO service expansion, as they are walking a fine line between whetting potential investors' apetites and keeping to their angelic perception by the public.

      --
      Knowledge is just opinion that you trust enough to act upon. -Orson Scott Card
  35. Reporting bugs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
    I was going to report a bug, but they don't seem to provide any way for doing that.

    If anyone from Google is reading this, check this out: If the posting uses ISO-2022-JP character set, the Japanese characters show up as some kind of question marks (at least in Firefox 0.8), when viewing the posting in the default, "parsed", mode. For example: parsed article.

    BUT, if the viewing mode is set to "show original", the same posting comes up with correct characters (but with ultra-tiny font?!): original version

  36. newsreaders are much better by Baki · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I just tried to subscribe to some groups, read some threads and have google groups keep track of it. I'd say it is 10 times as slow as using a good usenet client. IMO the main advantage of usenet over webforumes etc. is the availability of efficient clients, filters, scoring systems, kill-files etc. that allow you to scan through a large number of groups/threads in minimal time. No web interface will ever come close to that.

  37. I wish Slashdot would emulate Google Groups' UI by Alaska+Jack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One thing I've always admired is Google Groups' user interface -- the pane along the left-hand side makes it very clear where you are at in navigating a thread.

    Contrast this to Slashdot, where navigating the comments threads can be very confusing. I wish Slashdot could be re-written to something similar to GG. Anyone know the correct address for submitting this kind of suggestion?

    (Or, on the other hand, any good reason /. is better the way it is?)

    - Alaska Jack

    1. Re:I wish Slashdot would emulate Google Groups' UI by CvD · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know what you use for default settings for reading Slashdot comments, but I read at threshold 3, nested, and highest comments first... the nested option makes it a lot easier to read.

      A place to submit feature requests is at Slashcode sourceforge: http://sourceforge.net/projects/slashcode/

      More slashcode stuff at the Slashcode site. Dunno if you can submit bug reports and feature requests there though.

      Cheers.

  38. WOOAH-THERE - READ THIS FIRST by RMH101 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    what's this "Create new Google Group" option? It's not going to automatically put in the RFC: it's going to CREATE A GULF BETWEEN USENET AND GOOGLE GROUPS. at the moment, GG is a nice interface to Usenet for web users.

    It is now going to be a competitor. Read that again until you get it - this is a BIG, BIG change.

    1. Re:WOOAH-THERE - READ THIS FIRST by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right. They have done the Embrace part. Next comes Extend, then Extinguish.

      What's wrong with just using plain old Pan or Agent to read news? (which are powerful tools, not really 'plain' or 'old' at all.)

      --
      resigned
  39. How about their core business? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    My fear is that Google is going to end up just like Altavista did!

    Since three months the Dutch traditional sailing ship rental market has experienced very sophisticated "Google spam" from some large booking offices. This has lead to a serious decline in business of the so called "free ships" that do not work with those booking offices. Reporting this spam to Google has had no result at all... Could this non-response lead to the end of Google? Remember that Altavista was the number one search engine until the flood of "spam" rendered their search results useless. What can be done to stop Google spam if Google does not seem to react to a large number of submitted spam reports?

    First some background information. My girlfriend's uncle has been a captain of a traditional sailing ship in the Netherlands for many years now. You can rent his crewed ship for a day, weekend, midweek or week. He is a so called "free captain" since he is not working for one of the booking offices, that in his opinion charge too much.

    One of the ways he reaches potential customers is a website which looks quite professional and until this year received a reasonable number of visitors mostly via Google. The problem is that this number has dropped dramatically since some booking offices found a way to get high positions in Google in an "illegal" way: Not with real content but with fake pages that are there to fool Googlebot.

    Some of the biggest players in the Dutch charter market (Zeilvaart.com and Zeilvloot.nl) probably hired an expert to enable them to get those high positions. I will try to explain what I found out about the method they are using.

    Zeilvaart.com
    If you search Google for: site:zeilvaart.com html you will find about 1300 html pages that are all fake pages since it is an ASP website without real html pages. The standard layout of the fake pages is:

    Left column: menu with links to other fake pages
    Middle column: some text about a random ship
    Right column:
    - "Verzekerd zeilen..." -> some text about insurance with a link
    - "Zeilervaring niet nodig..." -> some text about sailing experience with a link
    - "Over de Zeilvaart..." -> some text about the company Zeilvaart
    Top menu: leads to the real website

    All the fake pages have file names that contain words people might search for when planning a sailing trip. The pages are all the same except for the different links to other fake pages and random ship information.

    Take for example this page that is aimed at the key phrase "zeilen IJsselmeer" ("sailing IJsselmeer" in Dutch):

    http://zeilen.zeilvaart.com/zeilen_ijsselmeer.html (Google cache)

    All the key words are in the URL and on the page are many links to other fake pages that contain other key words, both in content and in URL name: Personeelsuitje, Vergaderarrangement IJsselmeer, SAIL Amsterdam, Zeilen Batavia, Zeilen Teambuilding, etc.

    When someone searches Google for these exact words Zeilvaart.com always shows up as one of the first results..... This is big time Google spam! What makes it even worse is that they have started to use Google as their bill board because the title of the page is:

    "Heb jij ook zin om te zeilen in het IJsselmeer? Kijk dan op de site van De Zeilvaart!" which translates to:
    "Do you also feel like sailing the IJsselmeer? Have a look at the De Zeilvaart site!"

    They have given all fake pages such commercial-like titles....

    Only clicking an option from the top menu will lead to their real website.

    The equivalent in German "segeln IJsselmeer" leads to:

    1. Re:How about their core business? by NisJ�rgensen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Interesting to see this popping up in the Netherlands again.

      A Dutch colleague of mine had contracted a "Search Engine Optimization" company to help improve his search engine ranking. One of their suggestions was the creation of such "doorway pages" (but at a lot less sophisticated level - they seemed to be technically incompetent as well). I advised him to avoid implementing their suggestions, partially after reading the "terms" of Google - which says that they consider this "cheating".

      I just looked at the site of zeilvaart and the pages do not seem obviously fake. Indeed, some of them seem to contain information relating to the title (for instance "Engeland Zeilen". This may be why Google is not reacting to the complains.

      But the structure of the site does seem very strange indeed.

      I guess this is the case of a smart SEO, as opposed to the stupid one I experienced.

  40. Feel a bit disappointed by nandu_prahlad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I tried registering into Google groups, with my yahoo email id about 5 times and I was refused. The sixth time I tried my workplace id (non-hotmail or yahoo) and I got an account immediately.

    There was news sometime back how about hotmail and yahoo were blocking gmail invites.It's what you would expect an ordinary, run-of-the-mill multi-billion dollar company to do.

    Kudos to Google for a great UI. But I feel a bit disappointed.

  41. No way to sort search results by date? by Helevius · · Score: 2, Informative
    Did anyone else notice this? I see no way to sort search results by date. Hopefully this will be added in the future.

    Helevius

  42. Re:one step towards becoming the next MS by tcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh FFS, anyone could toddle off to Yahoo Groups to create their "closed and proprietry" discussions instead.

    Google provide a fantastic service and doesn't charge the majority of users a penny.

    Jesus, what does it take to please you people?

    --


    Information wants to be beer.
  43. Re:It crashed my browser by Derang() · · Score: 2, Informative

    Which version of firefox? I believe there is a bug that has been fixed in the later nightly builds which causes firefox to freeze when going to that site. It has somthing to do with the security certificate, IIRC.

  44. Re:Great. Whats next? by Toresica · · Score: 5, Funny

    Show me one free, instant, on-line translation tool that DOES produce sensical translations.

    Where's the fun in that?
    For instance, let's take a quote. I found this one in someone's signature a while ago.
    "The main reason for the downfall of the Roman Empire was, that lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful completion of a C program"
    Translate it to English to German:
    "der Hauptgrund für den Downfall des römischen Reiches war, dieses mangelnde null, sie hatte keine Weise, erfolgreiche Beendigung eines c-Programms anzuzeigen"
    I don't know German, so let's go back to English:
    "The Main reason for the case of down OF the novel Empire which, that lacking zero, they had NO way ton indicate successful completion OF A C program"
    It's already getting a little garbled, but let's not stop yet. From garbled English to French:
    "la raison principale du cas de vers le bas de l'empire de roman que, ce zéro manquer, elles n'a fait indiquer AUCUNE tonne de manière l'accomplissement réussi du programme C de A"
    I do know French, and that doesn't look quite right. Let's go back to English again:
    "principal reason of the case of to the bottom of the empire of novel that, this zero to miss, they did not make indicate ANY ton in manner the achievement successful of the program C of A"
    You could, of course, send the result to Portugeese and back, ending up with:
    "main reason of the example to the deep one of the empire of the novel that, this zero to lack, had not made to indicate ANY ton in the way the successful accomplishment it program C of"
    Or through Italian, which leaves us with:
    "main reason of the example to that deep one of the empire of the novel of that, this zero to difettare of, had not made in order to indicate WHICHEVER ton in the sense the succeeded realization it program C"

    Now where would we be if we didn't have Google's Translation sevice to make fun of?