OT: Ignore feature and spam infestation

hizark21

I am very angry that some spammers have infested this group. We need a
ignore feature in Google Groups now. Please help by voicing your
support to Google Groups @ (http://groups.google.com/group/Groups-
Suggestions/browse_frm/thread/20a246a14ddbfe45/
aef5cdfad43aca47#aef5cdfad43aca47 ).

Thanks All

Ted van de Weteringe

hizark21 wrote:
> I am very angry that some spammers have infested this group. We need a
> ignore feature in Google Groups now.

See first and last message by kdavies in
http://groups.google.com/group/rec....e02566161e64899

Donald Munro

Ted van de Weteringe wrote:
>> I am very angry that some spammers have infested this group. We need a
>> ignore feature in Google Groups now.

hizark21 wrote:
> See first and last message by kdavies in
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec....e02566161e64899

To be fair to M. Hizark, I think he is a requesting an enhancement to the
Google groups interface ie to allow an individual user to ignore a
specific thread much like most newsreader applications have, rather
than actually moderating the group. It should be possible to have a
cookie on the client machine specifying ignored threads when requesting
content from the server. Whether Google would actually want to allocate
any programming resources to NNTP, which is probably not a very high
volume service, is another question (as rower Collings says you get what
you pay for). A web service interface would be nice though.

Ted van de Weteringe

Donald Munro wrote:
> To be fair to M. Hizark, I think he is a requesting an enhancement to the
> Google groups interface ie to allow an individual user to ignore a
> specific thread much like most newsreader applications have, rather
> than actually moderating the group. It should be possible to have a

Right, but in the meantime try the addons.

SLAVE of THE STATE

On Apr 20, 2:17*am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Whether Google would actually want to allocate
> any programming resources to NNTP, which is probably not a very high
> volume service, is another question (as rower Collings says you get what
> you pay for).

Maybe I need to post a few more textbooks. For my own contributions,
and it may come as a shock, but I don't get carpel tunnel in my hands
any more than my knees suffer from turning big gears.

Tom should start some 12t threads.

Mark Shroyer

In article <480b0a44$0$2872$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Whether Google would actually want to allocate any programming
> resources to NNTP, which is probably not a very high volume service,
> is another question (as rower Collings says you get what you pay
> for). A web service interface would be nice though.


Clearly they aren't interested in dedicating any amount of resources to
Groups, otherwise they would have long ago done something about the
flood of spam coming from their servers.

It's become particularly intolerable in some of the technical newsgroups
that I frequent, especially comp.lang.*. Quite literally, >99% of the
spam in these groups over the past few months is from registered Google
Groups posters -- many of whom I and others have repeatedly reported to
Google for spamming starting months ago, never to any effect. (How
exactly does rendering one of the Internet's greatest historic
discussion utilities nearly unusable amidst an endless sea of spam --
and refusing to do a single thing about it, even after years of
complaint -- fit into the "do no evil" marketing device?)

If this were the old days, or if Google were not the 900 pound gorilla
of Web-based Usenet access, they would have been dealt a global UDP a
long, long ago. But until that day comes (or until Google finally gets
its act together with respect to spam; unlikely), an increasing number
of Usenet readers are taking the desperate countermeasure of killfiling
Google entirely. I myself recently caved in and did the same, and
Usenet has been wonderful ever since: I think I've seen only two or
three spam messages in the past week, total, without performing any
additional filtering whatsoever.

And sure, it sucks to block the few interesting, legitimate Groups
posters in my favorite newsgroups, but from my perspective *they* are
the ones who have chosen to post to Usenet through a provider complicit
in nearly all of the spam polluting our newsgroups, and *they* must take
into account the fact that many other posters will have killfiled Groups
as a natural result. And there is hardly a dearth of other Usenet
providers that they could choose from instead.

So, to anybody seriously concerned about coping with Usenet spam:

1. Use a Usenet provider other than Google Groups.

2. Killfile Google Groups.

Two easy steps to an infinitely better Usenet experience.

--
Mark Shroyer, http://markshroyer.com/contact/
I have joined others in blocking Google Groups due to excessive
spam. If you want more people to see your posts, you should use
another means of posting to Usenet. http://improve-usenet.org/