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."
And if you have a Gmail account you already have a login for the Google groups.
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.
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...
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!
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.
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?"
you mean like this or like this?
or perhaps a translation tool?
try these too.
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.
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.
I just sent this to groups-support@google.com:
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.
/. is better the way it is?)
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
- Alaska Jack
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?