Slashdot Mirror
Google Revises Usenet Search
michaelmalak writes "Wednesday night, Google Groups announced in a thread the rollout of their revised 20-year Usenet archive search engine. Among the various 'improvements': ability to search by date has been eliminated, as has the ability to deep link to a single post. See the announcement thread for others' reaction." An anonymous reader writes "ZDNet has published some interesting insights into what makes Google tick. In this lengthy article, Google's vice-president of engineering, Urs Hölzle delves into the nuts and bolts behind Google's operations, what back-up mechanisms and hardware setup is in place and even some interesting homegrown technology like the Google File System (GFS)."
Among the various 'improvements': ability to search by date has been eliminated, as has the ability to deep link to a single post.
Jee, nice "improvements"... I personally have linked to individual posts on a web page summarizing a lawsuit I was involved in that was directly related to posts in a newsgroup. I know others who have linked to posts in similar situations. I just checked my web page and the links to those posts no longer work.
Google just took a HUGE step backwards in my opinion.
Well, I supposed it makes it easier to hide the stupid things some of us may have posted (especially in university) to Usenet back in the 80s and early 90s. Mind you, those "features" allowed me to resurrect some semi-useful postings I had made:
Reading C Declarations: A Guide for the Mystified
The ANSI Standard: A Summary for the C Programmer
EricTry to search for a number using Beta and you'll see how broken it is.
Also, it creeped me out to no end discovering this morning that my Gmail cookie is really a "Google Accounts" cookie which will now be attached to my Usenet forays via Google as well. I personally don't want the line between public and private conversations to be muddied like that, and I definitely don't want a unified cookie straddling both domains.
Finally, the interface leaves a lot to be desired. The layout is cluttered and junky now whereas it was clean and simple before. I'm not enthralled by the Javascript hooks. Threading seems to be worse than ever (and still not done by message-ID or References - when I asked Google why this was via email, the response was "too difficult"... *boggle*) and the CLI-esque search ability is degenerating into a GUI mess; where one line of text and a CR would before get you to the page you wanted, it now can take that plus several additional mouse gestures and clicks.
This is a sad day, to see a useful tool become so f**ked up for no apparent good reason. I can only hope and pray for a reversion.
Absolutely. With so much spam and repetitive information on Usenet, I've always limited my searches by date.
And linking to a single post is the whole point. I know it costs money to keep that stuff online, but surely they could find a way to put ads on deeplinked posts.
Google just used up all its goodwill with me.
sigs, as if you care.
http://groups-beta.google.com/support/bin/request. py
/. was brought to bear upon this subject...
This is the feature request/bug reporting form.
They claim to read every mail generated by this link.
I just submitted a question about this.
I wonder what they'd do if the full power of the
/sig
Implementation details of the Google File System can be found in this paper by Google engineers.
I submitted the Slashdot story at 8:30am EST. At that time, groups.google.com went to the Beta. Now at 11:15am EST, groups.google.com is the old version, and the Beta has been relegated to a "Preview" link. Sometime in between, Google changed.
This may be a little off-topic, but it's been on my mind recently so I thought I'd mention that I recently blocked Googlebot from my website. Why? Because they were using a new version of the bot that was requesting pages WAY too rapidly, as in tens of pages every second. This new version pretends to be a "real" browser (using the "Mozilla (compatible)" format). The old version (User-Agent begins with "Googlebot") was also present, and requesting pages politely. I think this new version was part of their recent effort to regenerate their index and "deep scan" websites, because it was shortly after this that they advertised their index doubling in size.
There were other issues as well as the rapacious spidering (which reminded me of some of the worst spambots out there), but I won't go into the details here. I didn't get any satisfactory resolution from Google when I tried contacting them.
Website suicide? I don't know. All I do know is that Google seems to be fulfilling my biggest fears - they are going downhill as they get bigger. Funny how the bigger a company gets, the more it tends to suck. Also, having an IPO is never a good thing, in my experience - it always leads to short-termism and corporate decisions based more on the bottom line than what's actually good for the users. Sure, any company has to look after its shareholders and investors, but they never seem to really grok that being so focused on the short-term negatively impacts things in the longer term, particularly if it loses you goodwill in the userspace. Also, as a company grows you do tend to get the sort of braindead, clueless decisions coming out that we apparently see here.
So now we have Google restricting what we can do with old Usenet posts... didn't they buy up all the archives for this stuff a while back? This would appear to give them some amount of power, but also (they should realize) responsibility as stewards of the past. This is not something that they are simply indexing on someone else's website, it's data that they actually own. But in this case it's not really their data at all - it's the community's.
Google seems to be slowly using up the goodwill they built up since 1998 when they came onto the scene, a small, fast, simple, charming and relevant search engine that kicked ass. Why can't a company just keep doing what it does well, and be satisfied with that? Why does everything have to eventually grow, expand, gobble up other companies, and then inevitably start to suck?
Never mind... for now, Goodbye Google.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=ken+weaverling+s pam+usenet+first&hl=en&selm=9v6d5h%245pg%241%40new s.dtcc.edu&rnum=1
According to Ken and his search of google, I was the first people to ever use the word "spam" to refer to unwanted electronic communication. Obviously, I did'nt know it at the time and was quite surprised to learn of my "fame." Yeah, that and $7 will get me a cup of mocha-something, I know.
Anyhow, the whole point is that Ken's reserach was aided by the search by date feature. It will be a shame if that is removed.
(And for the curious, I changed my name from Czarnecki when I got married.)
I used this to bitch about the non-standard HTML coming out of their site, and an actual human responded a few days after an auto-responder did.
Of course, their HTML still doesn't validate...
- chrish
google needs a "I'm not shopping flag" you can put into the search string like !shopping or something. Maybe I will suggest that on that link up a few posts.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Well, there might be a more practical reason than they simply don't care about standard HTML. It appears the main problem is they don't tell the doctype. That would take them an extra 118 bytes PER REQUEST to include the type. That means, according to the 1000 requests per second mentioned in the article, they are saving 115Kbps in transfer rates by not including the doctype. It doesn't seem like much, but it is the same thing that got airlines to stop serving food. And this is just the Doctype. I'm sure they cut bites out wherever they can.
I can see the practical side of this, but this is effectively saying "we're too cheap to implement the standard properly, so we're going to play fast and loose with it to save some money". Microsoft gets hammered for this kind of stuff (rightly, IMHO), so why not Google?
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
I already have an archive of around 600 million messages (nearly everything sans binaries from 2000 till today; just a couple of terabytes) and intend to create a public Usenet search engine. As I am using Usenet myself on a daily basis, I know what *I* want in a Usenet search engine, and that's quite different from what Google gives us.
Here's how you can help: Contact me at martin-k (at) softmaker.de if you have a private collection of Usenet postings that you want me to put in the database.
-mk
SoftMaker Office for Windows|Linux|Android