Why did Google change this?

[lb]

I frequent these NG's a lot and still cannot figure out why they
changed how posts are listed and how active topics are dealt with. I
see on the right side is the supposed improvement listing active older
topics. I see in here, 3 topics that are spam and only have 1 author
and no replies. How are these active? I sometimes have to go back
many pages to find topics that have had several replies in the last 24
hours, but are not in the list on the right. How is this an
improvement?

Please go back to the way it was done and post topics in order as they
are authored or replied to. The spam will die out faster that way. I
am not sure who to complain to so maybe this will generate some
feedback.

Anyone with me on this?

[Tim Slattery]

lb > wrote:

>I frequent these NG's a lot and still cannot figure out why they
>changed how posts are listed and how active topics are dealt with.

>Please go back to the way it was done and post topics in order as they
>are authored or replied to. The spam will die out faster that way. I
>am not sure who to complain to so maybe this will generate some
>feedback.

Nobody here can control such things. Your argument is with Google.
This is a newsgroup, Google just happens to scoop it up and make it
available via its Googlegroups interface.

If you want things to work differently, try a different interface. You
can get a newsreader from various places. Agent
(www.forteinc.com/agent) and Thunderbird (www.mozilla.org/thunderbird)
are good, there are others too. Aim your newsreader at
msnews.microsoft.com for the microsoft.public.* groups, find out about
your ISP's Usenet server for other groups.

--
Tim Slattery
MS MVP(Shell/User)

http://members.cox.net/slatteryt

[Dan]

What search engines do you prefer, letterman?

" wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 06:28:42 -0700 (PDT), lb >
> wrote:
>
> >I frequent these NG's a lot and still cannot figure out why they
> >changed how posts are listed and how active topics are dealt with. I
> >see on the right side is the supposed improvement listing active older
> >topics. I see in here, 3 topics that are spam and only have 1 author
> >and no replies. How are these active? I sometimes have to go back
> >many pages to find topics that have had several replies in the last 24
> >hours, but are not in the list on the right. How is this an
> >improvement?
> >
> >Please go back to the way it was done and post topics in order as they
> >are authored or replied to. The spam will die out faster that way. I
> >am not sure who to complain to so maybe this will generate some
> >feedback.
> >
> >Anyone with me on this?
>
> I dont use googlegroups to post, only rarely do I use them to read
> posts. The way that thing is setup is rediculous. That 10 posts per
> page is the worst. Why can they just make a list of the last 100 or
> something is beyond me, and of course they dont filter any spam.
>
> Complaining will unlikely do anything (if they even read it). But go
> ahead and try if you wish. The google homepage should have a list of
> contacts, you complain to the contact regarding googlegroups.
>
> In my opinion, Google is on their way out the door. Their search
> engine fills up with advertisers before they give results, they allow
> all the spam on their groups, and now they got that most annoying
> search suggestion popup by default, which would be fine if it was NOT
> by default and needed to be turned on by the user. I always get a
> laugh when people post "google is your friend". It's not my friend.
> My friends dont spam me, or annoy me.
>
> I've been using other search engines latel.
>

[MEB[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:50:02 -0700, Dan
| > wrote:
|
| >What search engines do you prefer, letterman?
| >
| " wrote:
|
| I just started looking for alternatives to google, so I'm still
| looking. So far I use altavista the most. It's an oldie and was
| always pretty good. Just more advertising these days. I also use
| metacrawler and lycos and on occasion yahoo. I'm still looking for
| others that I like.
|

Hmm, then it may be worthwhile to address that may of those actually get
their information [all, most, or part of] from Google. So though you aren't
directly using Google, you are usually using its data. If fact, several
advised of that for awhile on the services.
If you are a webmaster or service provider you can check your logs to see
what crawlers and services are actually doing their own *research*.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org
a Peoples' counsel
_ _
~~

[J[_3_]]

wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:50:02 -0700, Dan
> > wrote:
>
> >What search engines do you prefer, letterman?
> >
> " wrote:
>
> I just started looking for alternatives to google, so I'm still
> looking. So far I use altavista the most. It's an oldie and was
> always pretty good. Just more advertising these days. I also use
> metacrawler and lycos and on occasion yahoo. I'm still looking for
> others that I like.

http://www.mamma.com/ ?

[J[_3_]]

wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 06:28:42 -0700 (PDT), lb >
> wrote:
>
> >I frequent these NG's a lot and still cannot figure out why they
> >changed how posts are listed and how active topics are dealt with. I
> >see on the right side is the supposed improvement listing active older
> >topics. I see in here, 3 topics that are spam and only have 1 author
> >and no replies. How are these active? I sometimes have to go back
> >many pages to find topics that have had several replies in the last 24
> >hours, but are not in the list on the right. How is this an
> >improvement?
> >
>
> I dont use googlegroups to post, only rarely do I use them to read
> posts. The way that thing is setup is rediculous. That 10 posts per
> page is the worst. Why can they just make a list of the last 100 or
> something is beyond me, and of course they dont filter any spam.
>
> Complaining will unlikely do anything (if they even read it). But go
> ahead and try if you wish. The google homepage should have a list of
> contacts, you complain to the contact regarding googlegroups.

https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/request.py