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)."

10 of 628 comments (clear)

  1. Progress? by danielrm26 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Among the various 'improvements': ability to search by date has been eliminated, as has the ability to deep link to a single post.

    Well damn - I hope they don't "improve" it too much more.

    --
    dmiessler.com -- grep understanding knowledge
    1. Re:Progress? by forrestt · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  2. hmmmm by meatspray · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Spelling: Google wrote its own spell checker, and maintains that nobody know as many spelling errors as it does. The amount of computing power available at the company means it can afford to begin teaching the system which words are related -- for instance "Imperial", "College" and "London". It's a job that many CPU years, and which would not have been possible without these thousands of machines. "When you have tons of data and tons of computation you can make things work that don't work on smaller systems," said Hölzle. One goal of the company now is to develop a better conceptual understanding of text, to get from the text string to a concept. "

    Next up: Grammar and Content

  3. Dumb by JavaLord · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why would you remove the search by date function? That is insanely useful when you are looking for posts about a particular product, especially tech products where you might only want the most recent posts, or you might be searching for an oudated product.

  4. Re:A little respect by dave-tx · · Score: 5, Insightful
    who are we to question the removal of features?

    We're the users. That's our right as users. If nobody questions the decision to remove features, then how does Google know what features we liked?

    There's absolutely nothing wrong with constructive criticism, even with respect to a "free" service.

    --

    >> "What would the robut do? Frame someone!"

  5. Hey Google: you're being evil... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Try 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.

  6. Direct Linking is still possible... by aridg · · Score: 5, Informative

    You can still do a deep link to a single article, if you like....

    Navigate to the thread, for example this comp.arch thread. Choose the post you want to link to, and click on "Show Options". Two of the options are "print", which is a link to a "printable" version of the article, and "Show original", which is a link to the article with all the headers.

    One more step (or simple URL hack) from this display is "view parsed" which gives a friendly HTML version -- for example, try this link.

  7. Re:RTFM by pbrammer · · Score: 5, Informative

    You are wrong. You are not on the new Google Groups page. There is sort by date, but not search by date. You want to look at groups-beta.google.com, not groups.google.com.

  8. Deep linking is still very much possible! by Ivan+Todoroski · · Score: 5, Informative

    Who was the idiot that started this rumor?

    Each message in a thread has a named HTML anchor, try this for instance. It will show the whole thread, but position you at an exact message in the middle.

    The only problem is there is no easy way to get this URL, you have to find the anchor by looking at the HTML source (Firefox's "View Selection Source" feature helps a lot).

    Also, if you click on the "Options" link by the individual message, you get a "Show original" link, which shows just the message, verbatim.

    And from there, you can click on "View parsed", and see just the pretty message, without the rest of the thread.

    So there's your deep-linking. I agree it's not obvious how to do it at the moment, but the ability is obviously still there. Give it some time, it's still a beta!

    These quirks and the "Server Error" bugs are to be expected, they'll work it out.

    As for the new browsing interface itself, I kinda like it. It integrates and borrows some stuff from their excellent Gmail interface.

    It hides quoted text by default (you can expand it with single click), so you don't have to scroll through some morons quoting of a whole message just to add a few words, it keeps a history of groups you recently visited, it allows you to bookmark topics you are interested in, etc. I do find it an improvement over the old interface.

    The only thing is the missing date search, I agree there, that was definitely useful feature. If enough people complain, maybe they'll bring it back.

    Also, someone else complained that you cannot browse by group anymore... bullshit, it's staring you right in the face, it's the "Browse all of Usenet" link.

  9. Don't like how the Google Usenet archive evolves? by martin-k · · Score: 5, Interesting
    If you don't like how Google's Usenet search engine and archive evolves (neither do I; Dejanews was tops for its time and things went downhill from there), help the competition... :-)

    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