Slashdot Mirror


Google Flips Back to Groups Beta (Again)

afabbro writes "Google backed off its beta of Google Groups within 24 hours of making it mandatory for all users. You may recall that its lack of features (date searches), unwanted features (e-mail masking), and clunky user interface met with a very chilly reception here. Unfortunately, as of December 5th, Google Groups Beta is back and you can't get to the original (wonderful) Google Groups anymore. Be sure to share your opinion with Google."

35 of 363 comments (clear)

  1. On the plus side by gowen · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... date limited searches are back on the "Advanced Search" page! Woohoo! That was the show stopper for me. Other than that, its nearly all cosmetic changes, and I don't care about those.

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    1. Re:On the plus side by ajs · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't dislike google groups, or the user interface changes. I don't care about those in the least, as they're almost entirely eye candy.

      I understand that.

      Sorry, I thought I was being clear. I was agreeing with you, and further clarifying WHY I think people are responding the way they did (despite your well observed points).

      HOWEVER, since my post, I've realized that it's not all good. Some of the tricks they're playing with JavaScript really suck for posting. For example, if you type up a huge post (I was replying to a question in comp.lang.perl.misc) and then submit it then checks to see if you've accepted the new terms of use. If you have not, it directs you to the accept page, and then back to a blank posting form. When you try to go "back" to your post, it's gone.

      A few other elements of posting are broken in similar ways and need to be addressed. If I get time, I'll submit a more complete bug report directly to Google.

      Folks at Google: remember the old song: JavaScript and a pig just don't mix.

  2. Re:boo by gowen · · Score: 3, Informative
    I can't believe that you removed a FREE service that I liked and used and replaced it with another FREE service
    Well, considering that they don't have any explicit right to reproduce everyone's copyrighted Usenet postings, they'd be really hard pushed to charge for this service anyway. In this case, the freeloading cuts both ways.
    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  3. Huh? by Otter · · Score: 5, Informative
    As of 9:10 am (EST) on December 6:
    • groups.google.com goes to the original interface, not to the beta.
    • Following a link to the beta shows that you can now easily search a date range.
    Not that Hemos could have, you know, looked before posting this...
  4. Re:Sucky. by will_die · · Score: 4, Informative

    You can get close to the old format.
    Click on a group, then at the top of the messages, click on 'Viewing titles only'. This removes all the text and gives you just a listing of all message titles.
    Now insides of a message goto the top, and just above first message you will see a link of 'view as tree'. It still is missing the previous,next links at the bottom. Also it does not have that bar along the side of the tree showing you which messages are in the other frame.

  5. It doesn't sound bad at all... by The-Bus · · Score: 4, Informative
    ...in their press release.

    If you read it, it looks like they are really aiming it at the LCD, with key segments like:

    Using Google Groups, people can search and participate in a variety of discussions. For example, someone looking to buy a new digital camera this holiday season can search for (digital camera recommendations) and find relevant posts from others about the best cameras to buy. A user can star (bookmark) this topic to watch and subscribe to receive posts from a group such as rec.photo.digital to regularly read more opinions on digital cameras. Similarly, users looking for advice on treating carpal tunnel or disputing a cell phone bill can find discussions from other people who have experience in these areas.


    Then again, most press releases are written with their intended audience being 6-year olds. "Ford Motor Company Inc. makes cars! Vroom vrooom! Beep beep! Ford cars!"
    --

    Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

  6. Re:Email masking... by Progman2000 · · Score: 5, Informative

    For one thing, it breaks PGP signatures. May be minor, but it *can* be irritating.

  7. original Google Groups by davron05 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Unfortunately, as of December 5th, Google Groups Beta is back and you can't get to the original (wonderful) Google Groups anymore. just visit any regional Google Groups, like groups.google.ch and you can still use the old interface.

  8. Re:Email masking... by turnstyle · · Score: 4, Informative
    What would be so bad about Email masking?

    On occasion, it can be very useful to try and contact somebody that had a similar problem, but a while ago. (ie, the thread is long since inactive)

    And I doubt that hiding those emails will have much practical impact on getting less spam. (people often use NOSPAM type emails anyway)

    --
    Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
  9. Great... by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 3, Informative

    These changes have completely fscked up links to usenet posts. A web page I know of that documents a lawsuit (won't post here since I don't want it to get slashdotted) provided links to relevant usenet posts. It now points instead to completely different unrelated posts in other newsgroups.

    For example, the link http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&ic=1&selm=a n_638071147 used to point to a post in news.admin.net-abuse.email. It now redirects for me to http://groups-beta.google.com/group/it.discussioni .auto/browse_thread/thread/dadced92c14aee94?ic=1 which points to an article in it.discussioni.auto. So Google seems to think there's some sort of correlation between news.admin.net-abuse.email and Italian car discussions???

    1. Re:Great... by TheGreatGraySkwid · · Score: 5, Informative

      Frankly, that's 'cause you weren't thinking when you copied that URL. The best way to link to a particular Usenet post on Google has always been to link directly to the message ID, like so. It's almost always shorter than whatever it was you had above, and it takes you right to the correct article, without fail, even now...

      --
      The Humblest Mollusk on the Net
    2. Re:Great... by scarhill · · Score: 2, Informative

      And in fact, http://groups.google.ca/groups?oi=djq&ic=1&selm=an _638071147 still links the NANAE post.

  10. In other news... by flatface · · Score: 2, Informative

    This probably isn't enough for a story, but Google finally has translation support for Eastern languages... I've tested Japanese, Chinese and Korean. They seem to be a lot like Systran's (babelfish) translations, but not exactly.

    You may mod me offtopic now.

  11. Only on google.com by AndrewRUK · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you don't like the new itnerface, just use it with a country code domain rather than .com. I've checked the UK, Canadian, French, German, and Australian versions, and all have the classic interface, rather than the new one.

  12. Couple of interesting new features by gorbachev · · Score: 3, Informative

    You can subscribe to Usenet groups and get all the postings to your email address.

    There's an Atom feed file for every group.

    The about page for each group has group archives available by year and month.

    I think once (if) I get used to the new interface this new Google Groups could be very nice indeed.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
  13. All of them haven't changed yet by Vilim · · Score: 2, Informative

    I was wondering what the original post and this one was talking about until I realised that I am in canada and am automatically redirected to the google.ca page. groups.google.ca still has the old interface

    --
    History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it - Sir Winston Churchill
  14. Am I missing something? by SenFo · · Score: 1, Informative

    Are you blind or did Google just add back the features you claim they have done away with?

    http://groups-beta.google.com/advanced_search

  15. use the URL and not the link and you're fine... by Khyron · · Score: 2, Informative

    Perhaps there is some confusion over the fact that the link "Groups" from the main Google pages now points at the beta. However if one goes to "groups.google.com" directly, you see the same old interface and merely a link inviting you to try the beta if you like.

    I happen to have been doing some research all last week and this weekend on groups.google.com and have not noticed any strange changes at all. Sounds to me like they just changed a link on their front page to drive traffic to the beta, big deal?

  16. Re:boo by gowen · · Score: 2, Informative
    Usenet is public domain
    No. It isn't. Nothing is public domain unless put there by its copyright holder, or by the expiry of its copyright.
    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  17. Deep linking is back by michaelmalak · · Score: 3, Informative
    In response to my Slashdot submission a few days ago, a couple of people responded with a non-intuitive way to grab a deep link. But it looks like Google listened, and not only is search-by-date back, but "Show original" is now an option again -- the more intuitive way to grab a deep link.

    However, the deep link you get now is a Google article number, similar to the DejaNews article numbers -- which no longer work of course. The old Google deep links encoded the MsgID directly in the URL, thus guarateeing their usefulness in the future.

  18. Re:boo by dissy · · Score: 4, Informative

    > > Usenet is public domain

    > No. It isn't. Nothing is public domain unless put there by its copyright holder,
    > or by the expiry of its copyright.

    While its true the posts are not public domain, and technically are copyrighted, the authors already granted permission for the usenet network to reproduce the messages and distribute them to usenet clients, simply by willingly posting them.

    So google, acting as a usenet carrier/server, has the permission to do this.
    Additionally, as long as the people using clients do not reproduce the works outside of usenet, they have the right to obtain and archive the messages as well already (copyright never prevented that)

    So google could even charge for this service legally.
    I'm glad they choose not to though.

  19. Someone please call the lawyers back! by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Informative

    OK, before anyone else posts ill-informed rubbish, please go back and read the previous thread, where this argument was done to death. For those who can't be bothered, here's the executive summary:

    1. Usenet posts are copyright of their authors, automatically and without any obligation to register in most jurisdictions. They do not become public domain, free-for-all content just because they're posted to Usenet.
    2. The reason Usenet itself is legal is because the authors implicitly give their permission to copy the work for distribution around the system when they post.
    3. Since Usenet posts normally expire after a few days, it is questionable whether the implicit permission covers archival usage, and if so, whether that archive is then allowed to be used for further commercial purposes.
    4. Google has no magical rights in law, and does not gain any just because someone didn't put an x-no-archive header on their post or because someone knows that Google Groups exists. (In fact, that header isn't a standard one anyway -- hence the "x-" -- and didn't even exist when the earlier posts in Google's current archive were made.)
    5. In the absence of explicit permission to reproduce the posts in this way, the onus is on Google to demonstrate that implicit permission has been given. If it can't, it's breaking the law.
    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    1. Re:Someone please call the lawyers back! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Since Usenet posts normally expire after a few days, it is questionable whether the implicit permission covers archival usage, and if so, whether that archive is then allowed to be used for further commercial purposes.

      This is complete and utter BULL SHIT. Usenet posts DO NOT normally expire after a few days. Many modern nntp servers do discard posts in _binary_ newsgroups after a few days, but that's simply because of storage limits. In the early days, usenet posts remained on nntp servers forever. There is no expected expiry on usenet posts. Once you make a post on usenet, it is distributed throughout the internet and remains part of usenet forever. It's been this way since the beginning, in fact ALL original newsreaders warned users about this all the time, and nothing has changed.

      Your point is PURE FUD.

      In the absence of explicit permission to reproduce the posts in this way, the onus is on Google to demonstrate that implicit permission has been given. If it can't, it's breaking the law.

      Can you send us a postcard from that Dreamland you're in at the moment?

  20. Re:boo by duffbeer703 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, you can revoke that permissiona and request that Google remove your posts from the archive.

    --
    Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
  21. Re:boo by geoffspear · · Score: 3, Informative
    There is no reasonable expectation that your articles will be removed from servers. Even the Expires: header is specified in RFC1036 as a "suggested" expiration date; compliant servers are no required to delete expired articles with the header, and they're allowed to provide a local policy for how long messages are kept (including forever, if they've got the storage capacity).

    The fact that you couldn't imagine in 1987 that anyone running a new server would ever be able to afford enough storage to keep all of USENET available does not constitute an expectation that your articles would be available for a limited time.

    --
    Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
  22. Search by Date seems to be there... by the_pilif · · Score: 3, Informative

    ... http://groups-beta.google.com/advanced_search it's just right there at the bottom of the form. So for me all this whining around is quite senseless. Without this date-search, google groups would indeed be completely useless (who is interested in answers to tech-questions asked around 1990?) Philip

  23. Re:Email masking... by BReflection · · Score: 3, Informative

    When you reply to a post it gives you the option to e-mail that person.

    --
    python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
  24. Re:Email masking... by ikea5 · · Score: 5, Informative
    I can't belive no one mentioned this:

    You can see the email address in Google Groups if you click on the 'Reply to Author' link.

  25. Re:Ugly fonts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Well, I see that you have Lynx in your name. I am using Lynx right now. The new google groups uses so much Javascript that Lynx can't be used to view it at all. GOOGLE HATES BLIND PEOPLE!

  26. Here's what I sent to them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Just curious if anyone feels the same -

    -----

    I'm just writing to express complete dissatisfaction with new 'improved' user interface. I realize that UI design is very subjective subject prone to lengthy flames, still I believe it wouldn't hurt to provide the feedback from the masses :)

    Few things that are immediately annoying are an overuse of color, stupid star icons all over the place and no obvious way to get a threaded view of a topic. It starts to look like Lotus Notes - fancy-shmancy for no reason.

    'Signin/Join' dialog takes too much real estate on the page and it makes me feel pushed into subsribing at something that I don't care about. I DON'T feel a need to login, so there's no need to remind me on every page that I still have that option. Simple 'login' link in corner of the page would've done it just fine.

    'Create new group' option also seems out of place, since I don't perceive it as something that I would use frequently if ever. The same goes for 'About' link.

    I guess it can be summed up as this - the interface now is 30% of water and 70% of information, whereas it used to be 10%/90%. And this distracts and annoys a lot. From a first (and second) glance, it's a change for worse, and definetly not for better.

  27. Date searches in Advanced Groups Search by Michael+Ross · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...its lack of features (date searches)...

    Advanced Groups Search (http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl =en) appears to have date searches. Or was the previous date searching better?

  28. Re:Your email address is part of your USENET ident by rpresser · · Score: 4, Informative

    Don't know if you noticed, but /. ate the email addresses you tried to embed inside angle brackets in your post.

  29. Re:Threaded view? by interJ · · Score: 2, Informative

    You are blind. Click 'view tree' inside the message to get the threaded view. You only need to do this once since it's remembered in a cookie.

  30. Re:I like it! by endx7 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Finally, the "old" interface is still very much available. It's at http://groups.google.com

    Incorrect. Try to go anywhere from there and you just end up with the new interface anyway.

  31. Mod parent down by Snaller · · Score: 2, Informative

    The first page looks like the original but if you search you are in the new interface - no choice.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating