* george washington's 292nd birthday
* 512 years after amerigo vespucci died
* usenet bids farewell to google groups
On 30 Jan 2024, D wrote:
* george washington's 292nd birthday
* 512 years after amerigo vespucci died
* usenet bids farewell to google groups
Is anywhere keeping stats on usenet posts? I wonder if/how much the numbers >will drop.
On 1/30/2024 3:33 AM, gbbgu wrote:
Is anywhere keeping stats on usenet posts? I wonder if/how much the
numbers
will drop.
even if they drop, will the quality improve is the question
kyonshi wrote:
On 1/30/2024 3:33 AM, gbbgu wrote:
Is anywhere keeping stats on usenet posts? I wonder if/how much the
numbers
will drop.
even if they drop, will the quality improve is the question
Depends on how you calculate "quality".
Spam will decrease. That will affect "the numbers". If you define
"quality" as the percentage of legitimate posts divided by total posts,
the "quality" will increase.
But there are people who post legitimate content via Google. Not a huge number perhaps, but the population of Usenet users is small. Some of
these will obtain a newsreader and a news provider and continue to participate in Usenet. Many of them will not. Thus the impact of
losing Google as a way to post to Usenet will deprive it of some amount
of useful input.
even if they drop, will the quality improve is the question
kyonshi wrote:
On 1/30/2024 3:33 AM, gbbgu wrote:
Is anywhere keeping stats on usenet posts? I wonder if/how much the numbers >>>will drop.
even if they drop, will the quality improve is the question
Depends on how you calculate "quality".
Spam will decrease. That will affect "the numbers". If you define
"quality" as the percentage of legitimate posts divided by total posts,
the "quality" will increase.
But there are people who post legitimate content via Google. Not a huge >number perhaps, but the population of Usenet users is small. Some of
these will obtain a newsreader and a news provider and continue to >participate in Usenet. Many of them will not. Thus the impact of
losing Google as a way to post to Usenet will deprive it of some amount
of useful input.
kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> writes:
even if they drop, will the quality improve is the question
At least the countdown to the DoD (day-of-drop) will disappear?
kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> writes:
even if they drop, will the quality improve is the question
At least the countdown to the DoD (day-of-drop) will disappear?
Poeple who will drop off Usenet because of their own refusal to look for
an alternative will be lost. It's the way of things. The rest of us
can't force them to change their method of communication.
I cannot emphasize how much it is their own choice that they've done
nothing about it.
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Poeple who will drop off Usenet because of their own refusal to look for
an alternative will be lost. It's the way of things. The rest of us
can't force them to change their method of communication.
I cannot emphasize how much it is their own choice that they've done >>nothing about it.
I believe that folks make a cost/benefit decision based on the
information available to them. The cost in this case is finding an >alternative to Google and learning how to use it, a task which is much
more difficult for the "button pushers" than for those of us who diddle
with software as part of our lives. I am not denigrating this segment
of user; "button pushers" can make important contributions to groups
that are not computer-technical.
. . .
The spammers will make a similar decision . . . back in "the day" it was
an easy decision to spam Usenet - the cost was essentially zero and
there were lots of readers of the spam. Today that population of
readers is a tiny fraction of what it was. Why would a spammer invest
actual time and money to reach that small audience? I expect most of
the ones who were spamming via Google will just abandon Usenet.
. . .
Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Poeple who will drop off Usenet because of their own refusal to look for >>>an alternative will be lost. It's the way of things. The rest of us
can't force them to change their method of communication.
I cannot emphasize how much it is their own choice that they've done >>>nothing about it.
I believe that folks make a cost/benefit decision based on the
information available to them. The cost in this case is finding an >>alternative to Google and learning how to use it, a task which is much
more difficult for the "button pushers" than for those of us who diddle >>with software as part of our lives. I am not denigrating this segment
of user; "button pushers" can make important contributions to groups
that are not computer-technical.
Nevertheless, the rest of us have tried to make it as easy as possible
for them by providing lists of News servers and newsreaders and even Web >interfaces. It's not beyond their ability. They just haven't done so.
. . .
The spammers will make a similar decision . . . back in "the day" it was
an easy decision to spam Usenet - the cost was essentially zero and
there were lots of readers of the spam. Today that population of
readers is a tiny fraction of what it was. Why would a spammer invest >>actual time and money to reach that small audience? I expect most of
the ones who were spamming via Google will just abandon Usenet.
What the hell are you talking about? The spammers aren't trying to reach >Usenet users only but improve their SEO rankings in Google Search.
as a layman i'm inclined to ask naive questions . . . have google groups posts >affected google search rankings, possibly independent of their nearly obsolete >usenet connection which might help to explain the incomparably vast quantities >of spam passed along to usenet newsgroups without any regard whatsoever to the >irreparable consequences they have wrought against unwary users of this user's >network? some might say it's deliberate, "embrace, extend, extinguish" tactics
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 299 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 75:52:38 |
Calls: | 6,695 |
Calls today: | 5 |
Files: | 12,228 |
Messages: | 5,347,208 |
Posted today: | 2 |