YAAD

"rpresser" <rpresser.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in news:1141258631.156126.262600
@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

> I also made a large mistake in not refreshing my memory for all my
> spells (which were ALL at 0% failure) before leaving the dungeon.
> There's no damn *time* to read books on the Planes.
>

I would say you should refresh all your spells before you wake the
wizard. Any time after that and you're going to have him annoying you.
 >> Stay informed about: YAAD 

Bard wrote:
> Jove wrote:
> > You seem to think Google Groups is (or is becoming) the enemy. Good,
> > because I agree. But I think we need to know our enemy by objectively
> > looking at why it's doing what it's doing. Then seeing how we can use
> > that against it. Google seems to big for any but a judo approach to
> > work.
>
> Out of curiosity, why is it 'becoming the enemy?' I use Google groups
> now because of the convenience factor and I don't think of it as a bad
> newsreader.

I second this. Google Groups is the only means I know of to read
newsgroups from the five different locations I usually use my
laptop from.
Those locations are in different countries, and in places with
different policies concerning firewalls and the availibility of
a news server. If there is a simple way for me to read rgrn from
all these locations with a single newsreader without having
to edit a configuration file each time I change location I don't
know it and I guess I would need a lot of time to figure it out
(so that I guess I'll never figure it out).

So this does not make Google Groups the enemy but my only
means of reading news in fact.

chlorine.
 >> Stay informed about: YAAD 

Jove wrote:
> On 2 Mar 2006 05:46:09 -0800, "chlorine" <chlorine.DeleteThis@free.fr> wrote:
>
> >I second this. Google Groups is the only means I know of to read
> >newsgroups from the five different locations I usually use my
> >laptop from.
> >Those locations are in different countries, and in places with
> >different policies concerning firewalls and the availibility of
> >a news server. If there is a simple way for me to read rgrn from
> >all these locations with a single newsreader without having
> >to edit a configuration file each time I change location I don't
> >know it and I guess I would need a lot of time to figure it out
> >(so that I guess I'll never figure it out).
> >
> >So this does not make Google Groups the enemy but my only
> >means of reading news in fact.
>
> You've listed a lot of reasons why Google is convenient, but no
> reasons to show that it's good.
>
> Convenient is not the same as good.

I totally agree with you that convenient is not the same as good.
Google groups indeed is far from good, but I just wanted to point
out that in some cases it's the only solution availaible,
therefore naming it 'the enemy' seems a little strong.

>
> Why is Google the enemy?

<snip many demonstrations that Google is not convenient,
with which I totally agree>

> Truncating messages. Encouraging users to think Usenet is for those
> with short attention spans, like irc.

This one's terribly annoying indeed.
But er, if irc is for people with short attention spans, what should
I think of people that can be found both on usenet and irc?

<more snipping>

Well, you've listed lots of reasons for which Google is inconvenient,
and incovenient is not the same as 'the enemy'.

Cheers,
chlorine
 >> Stay informed about: YAAD 

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 08:41:13 +0100, Raisse the Thaumaturge
<raisse RemoveThis @valdyas.org> wrote:

>Do you have to use Google Groups? My newsreader thinks it's a new thread,
>and it's not very intelligent as newsreaders go.
>

I think the point is that the post will be seen by few, if any, Google
Groups users. Whether this is good or bad may depend on your point of
view, but I think posts are usually written to be read.

Google Groups may also be increasing in popularity as a newsreader,
due to sheer convenience. This could lead to some interesting
situations due to the broken threading of GG, as more and more subjects
become repeats of previous, and possibly years old, subjects.


As a note, I wouldn't have seen the post either, being a user of the
otherwise fine newsreader Forte Agent. But I learned how to outsmart it
on that score.




--
The above quoted text has been editted to further my own nefarious purposes.

All the best,
Jove
 >> Stay informed about: YAAD 

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 12:19:31 +0100, Raisse the Thaumaturge
<raisse DeleteThis @valdyas.org> wrote:

>Jove wrote:
>
>> Google Groups may also be increasing in popularity as a newsreader,
>> due to sheer convenience.
>
>If you can explain what's *convenient* about using an interface that you
>have to start a browser for, that doesn't show messages in any sensible
>order, that doesn't mark read properly and makes it well-nigh impossible
>to quote, you're a *much* better man than I.
>
>(oh, and it's ugly too)

<All of Raisse's excellent points left in.>

Those are usability points more than convenience points, imho.

Google has two great points of convenience, as far as I can see.

- Can be accessed from any machine with Internet access and a browser.
(Internet cafes, libraries, etc.)

- Probably the most complete easily accessible news archive on the
Internet.



I generally have a browser window open to the advanced search page at
all times. But I still won't read news with it.

You seem to think Google Groups is (or is becoming) the enemy. Good,
because I agree. But I think we need to know our enemy by objectively
looking at why it's doing what it's doing. Then seeing how we can use
that against it. Google seems to big for any but a judo approach to
work.

I hope I'm wrong.


--
The above quoted text has been editted to further my own nefarious purposes.

All the best,
Jove
 >> Stay informed about: YAAD 

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting rpresser <rpresser.DeleteThis@gmail.com>:
> >Well ... I almost made it again. This time I made it to the Astral
> >Plane, mostly on the strength of charm monster. But I forgot about the
> >need for +oT or /oT, had no way to clear the throng, and Pestilence
> >made me sick to death (three times).
>
> Presumably if the altar you wanted had been first or second you'd have
> made it. Bad luck.

No, that's not true. I never got to an altar; I was stuck in the
vestibule where you appear.
 >> Stay informed about: YAAD 

Quoting rpresser <rpresser RemoveThis @gmail.com>:
>Well ... I almost made it again. This time I made it to the Astral
>Plane, mostly on the strength of charm monster. But I forgot about the
>need for +oT or /oT, had no way to clear the throng, and Pestilence
>made me sick to death (three times).

Presumably if the altar you wanted had been first or second you'd have
made it. Bad luck.
--
David Damerell <damerell RemoveThis @chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is Oneiros, March.
 >> Stay informed about: YAAD 

On 2 Mar 2006 05:46:09 -0800, "chlorine" <chlorine RemoveThis @free.fr> wrote:

>I second this. Google Groups is the only means I know of to read
>newsgroups from the five different locations I usually use my
>laptop from.
>Those locations are in different countries, and in places with
>different policies concerning firewalls and the availibility of
>a news server. If there is a simple way for me to read rgrn from
>all these locations with a single newsreader without having
>to edit a configuration file each time I change location I don't
>know it and I guess I would need a lot of time to figure it out
>(so that I guess I'll never figure it out).
>
>So this does not make Google Groups the enemy but my only
>means of reading news in fact.
>


You've listed a lot of reasons why Google is convenient, but no
reasons to show that it's good.

Convenient is not the same as good.

Why is Google the enemy?

Threading by subject. Duplicate subjects get lost in the mists of
time. (And you can no longer really sort posts by date to find the
latest ones. You used to be able to do that.) As more and more
subjects get added, more and more new posts will duplicate previous
subjects, and will essentially be lost forever. (I've started being
careful about making the subjects of my new posts unique.)

Difficult to autoquote in a reply.

"Tree" view convinces too many posters that "all newsreaders must be
like this." Their posts of consisting of single word replies to
unquoted posts make them look like prats, even on Google if you don't
use tree view. (And Google will archive the evidence forever.)

No automatic signature support(?). So signature delimiters must be
typed in every time. These are subject to typos at the very least,
missing " " after the "--", etc.

Shows messages in proportional font. Yes, a single click can take you
to fixed font, with more download wait. And more ads, which I suspect
is the real point.

Ridiculously narrow width for display so more ads can be shown on the
page. (I presume that's the reason. I block the ads.)

The only way to see a message as it was written by the author (and
presumably the way the author intended it to be seen) is to click "Show
Original." I suspect few posters using Google do this. So they may
never learn how their own post looks to a lot of readers. What looks
good on Google may look terrible anywhere else. They also won't learn
by reading all the little tricks to make posts more readable and
attractive, because Google obscures those with too-narrow width and
proportional font.

Truncating messages. Encouraging users to think Usenet is for those
with short attention spans, like irc.

No automatic spell checking(?). It wouldn't be perfect, but I don't
think it would be worse.

Rips out the "[s]" tag silently and automatically. (And maliciously?
I don't think so, but there doesn't seem to be any other reason to do
it.) This one is starting to become frustrating. Newgrouping
rec.games.roguelike.slashem may be the only practical solution.

Adds "Re:" to the beginning of the subject in a reply(?). Doesn't
help Google. Doesn't hurt newsreaders with real threading. Breaks up
threads in other newsreaders that use the subject for threading.



In short, Google discourages (and sometimes prevents) posting style
that makes posts easy and worthwhile to read.




--
The above quoted text has been editted to further my own nefarious purposes.

All the best,
Jove
 >> Stay informed about: YAAD 

Quoting Jove <invalid.DeleteThis@invalid.invalid>:
>On 2 Mar 2006 05:46:09 -0800, "chlorine" <chlorine.DeleteThis@free.fr> wrote:
>>I second this. Google Groups is the only means I know of to read
>>newsgroups from the five different locations I usually use my
>>laptop from.

Have an account on a real computer and ssh into it. Works for me.

> Adds "Re:" to the beginning of the subject in a reply(?). Doesn't
>help Google. Doesn't hurt newsreaders with real threading. Breaks up
>threads in other newsreaders that use the subject for threading.

I believe that all newsreaders that group by subject (_not_ "use the
subject for threading", threading means _only_ analysis of References:
lines) understand that "Re: " prefixes should be ignored.
--
David Damerell <damerell.DeleteThis@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is Oneiros, March.
 >> Stay informed about: YAAD 

On 2 Mar 2006 06:33:06 -0800, "chlorine" <chlorine.TakeThisOut@free.fr> wrote:

>
>Jove wrote:
>>
>> You've listed a lot of reasons why Google is convenient, but no
>> reasons to show that it's good.
>>
>> Convenient is not the same as good.
>
>I totally agree with you that convenient is not the same as good.
>Google groups indeed is far from good, but I just wanted to point
>out that in some cases it's the only solution availaible,
>therefore naming it 'the enemy' seems a little strong.
>
>>
>> Why is Google the enemy?
>
><snip many demonstrations that Google is not convenient,
>with which I totally agree>
>
>> Truncating messages. Encouraging users to think Usenet is for those
>> with short attention spans, like irc.


>
>This one's terribly annoying indeed.
>But er, if irc is for people with short attention spans, what should
>I think of people that can be found both on usenet and irc?

Not much.

>
><more snipping>
>
>Well, you've listed lots of reasons for which Google is inconvenient,
>and incovenient is not the same as 'the enemy'.

I didn't (and don't) think those features are inconvenient for those
who post through Google.. Mostly they make it convenient to make poor
posts to Usenet. Google makes it easy to pollute Usenet. This is a bad
enough, but there are historical reasons for additional concern.
(Google for the September that never ended.)

That Google is continuing to get worse, instead of better, in this
regard is further cause for concern.

--
Today is: MMMMDLXVI September MCMXCIII

All the best,
Jove
 >> Stay informed about: YAAD 

Jove wrote:
>
> Convenient is not the same as good.

Correct. But it matters. I first started using google because
it was convenient. Then I got a job with 100% travel. At a
different location every week I could never tell what was blocked
and what was not, office or motel. But none of them ever
blocked web.

Over time I got used to the search features and got to the
point I like them better than I dislike the disadvantages.
If I find a good archive with a web based newsreader that
does most of the right stuff, I'd be happy to switch.

> Why is Google the enemy?
>
> Threading by subject. Duplicate subjects get lost in the mists of
> time ...

No longer true since the switch to beta.

> Difficult to autoquote in a reply.

Most annoying misfeaure ever!

> The only way to see a message as it was written by the author (and
> presumably the way the author intended it to be seen) is to click "Show
> Original." I suspect few posters using Google do this. So they may
> never learn how their own post looks to a lot of readers. What looks
> good on Google may look terrible anywhere else. They also won't learn
> by reading all the little tricks to make posts more readable and
> attractive, because Google obscures those with too-narrow width and
> proportional font.

I show original a lot, but for a different reason that Google
is a problem:

Google has a "Report Abuse" link but they make zero attempt
to contact other ISPs. If they would automate an e-mail to the
header line that reports abuse or even better that sends to the
originating ISP this feature would rule, but no such luck.

Further on the same issue they will not address the issue of
rogue ISPs at all. Google itself is slow to pull accounts from
trolls and fast to allow trolls to open new accounts, but they
don't even acknowledge the existance of rogue ISPs that neve
pull troll accounts.

Google calls UseNet newsgroups "Google newsgroup" as if
they actually owned them. Worse, since they do have internal
groups and they don't make any distinction between theirs and
the real ones so there's no apparent boundary.

No killfile. They go through all that effort to have profiles
per user account but no killfile? What a pain. The price of
searches versus no killfiles is a high one to pay.
 >> Stay informed about: YAAD 

Doug Freyburger wrote:
> Jove wrote:
> > Threading by subject. Duplicate subjects get lost in the mists of
> > time ...
>
> No longer true since the switch to beta.

Well, there's still something that needs tweaking. I started my own
thread, using the "Start a new topic" link on Google groups and using
the subject YAAD. But Google decided my thread was really part of the
older thread with the same subject that was begun by Jack Bolsen on Jan
26. That's just not right.

Worse yet, the whole thread now appears under the "Re: Google Groups is
the Enemy? (was: 'Re: YAAD')", even though Jack Bolsen's thread had
absolutely nothing to do with Google Groups. This cannot be waved away
as a non-problem.
 >> Stay informed about: YAAD 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: YAAD