On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 02:07:44 +0100
Timo <timo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Am 15.12.2023 um 02:55 schrieb Grant Taylor:
> >
> > I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted
> > them to.
>
> I think it's simply not a profitable service, and that's why it's no
> longer offered.

["service" referring to googlegroups]

Google stopped putting adverts on googlegroups many years ago. After that
how could they make any money from it ? I don't mean actually make profit
but derive any income whatsoever.

On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 02:07:44 +0100
Timo <timo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Am 15.12.2023 um 02:55 schrieb Grant Taylor:
> >
> > I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted
> > them to.
>
> I think it's simply not a profitable service, and that's why it's no
> longer offered.
>
> > I sort of wonder if they purposely shut off some sort of filtering in
> > preparation for this and that's why the amount of spam spiked the way it
> > did recently.
>
> The amount of spam seems to have been increasing daily for about two
> years now. I see this not only in Usenet.
> The bots are becoming more intelligent, for example, through AI.

There was nothing intelligent about the recent (well , since September 2023
or so) explosion of spam injected through googlegroups , it could be detected
and filtered and many operators of free newsservers managed exactly that with
almost 100% success (i.e. very few non spam posts filtered and very few spam
posts going through).

> > Or, more likely, some internal service was replaced and the replacement
> > wasn't compatible with the old Google Groups Usenet gateway code, thus
> > the spam was no longer detected and prevented.
>
> I think less so. Google employs good programmers who could fix this in a
> short time.

And they could also create filters for the spam which filters could have been
similar to the filters they use for incoming messages to gmail accounts. The
spam was repetitive , it wasn't hard to detect patterns.

But I don't think that usenet is important enough to Google to employ any
kind of subterfuge like intentionally shut off filters. Plus this is the kind
of thing which might have annoyed enough some employee to leak the
information. I think some new spammers simply decided at some point to use
googlegroups for spam , Google noticed and decided that usenet wasn't
important enough to expend even a little effort to filter the spam ; or
Google management got reminded of usenet and decided they don't want to
support it anymore apart from preexisting content.

The patterns of the spammers are also strange. For example , until 2023-12-08 ,
comp.editors and sci.lang.japan were getting a lot of spam and then it cut
off completely (at least based on what I see on news.cyber23.de) .But on
comp.lang.lisp and comp.lang.forth it continues unabated with a lot more
on comp.lang.lisp .

--
vlaho.ninja/menu

In article <KE=TbQZu1TymBR1gH@bongo-ra.co>,
Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 02:07:44 +0100
>Timo <timo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Am 15.12.2023 um 02:55 schrieb Grant Taylor:
>> >
>> > I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted
>> > them to.
>>
>> I think it's simply not a profitable service, and that's why it's no
>> longer offered.
>
>["service" referring to googlegroups]
>
>Google stopped putting adverts on googlegroups many years ago. After that
>how could they make any money from it ? I don't mean actually make profit
>but derive any income whatsoever.

No Google Ads for me!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

On 12/23/23 19:07, Timo wrote:
> I think less so. Google employs good programmers who could fix this in a
> short time.

I agree.

However that is predicated by management allowing the programmers to do so.

I believe this was more deliberate and business level than it was
anything else.

--
Grant. . . .

In article <um9u9h$l2i$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>,
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>On 12/23/23 19:07, Timo wrote:
>> I think less so. Google employs good programmers who could fix this in a
>> short time.
>
>I agree.
>
>However that is predicated by management allowing the programmers to do so.
>
>I believe this was more deliberate and business level than it was
>anything else.
>
>

Debatable tothe end. Let the business students make a MAsters and PH.D.
Thesis out of this!

>
>--
>Grant. . . .

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

On 12/24/23 02:52, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 02:07:44 +0100
> Timo <timo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Am 15.12.2023 um 02:55 schrieb Grant Taylor:
>>>
>>> I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted
>>> them to.
>>
>> I think it's simply not a profitable service, and that's why it's no
>> longer offered.
>
> ["service" referring to googlegroups]
>
> Google stopped putting adverts on googlegroups many years ago. After that
> how could they make any money from it ? I don't mean actually make profit
> but derive any income whatsoever.

To be fair, Google has a ton of other services and could probably
survive leaving it up. From a business perspective, however..
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

In article <uma9j9$2nk73$5@dont-email.me>,
candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>On 12/24/23 02:52, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 02:07:44 +0100
>> Timo <timo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Am 15.12.2023 um 02:55 schrieb Grant Taylor:
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted
>>>> them to.
>>>
>>> I think it's simply not a profitable service, and that's why it's no
>>> longer offered.
>>
>> ["service" referring to googlegroups]
>>
>> Google stopped putting adverts on googlegroups many years ago. After that
>> how could they make any money from it ? I don't mean actually make profit
>> but derive any income whatsoever.
>
>To be fair, Google has a ton of other services and could probably
>survive leaving it up. From a business perspective, however..

They needed to maintain good administration!!

>--
>user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
>

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

The Doctor wrote:
> In article <uma9j9$2nk73$5@dont-email.me>,
> candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>> On 12/24/23 02:52, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>>> On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 02:07:44 +0100
>>> Timo <timo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Am 15.12.2023 um 02:55 schrieb Grant Taylor:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted
>>>>> them to.
>>>>
>>>> I think it's simply not a profitable service, and that's why it's no
>>>> longer offered.
>>>
>>> ["service" referring to googlegroups]
>>>
>>> Google stopped putting adverts on googlegroups many years ago. After that
>>> how could they make any money from it ? I don't mean actually make profit
>>> but derive any income whatsoever.
>>
>> To be fair, Google has a ton of other services and could probably
>> survive leaving it up. From a business perspective, however..
>
> They needed to maintain good administration!!
>
>> --
>> user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
>>
>
>

How much it would it have cost Google to have detailed one programmer to
handle this stuff? Google Groups is revenue-negative on its own, but
searching is Google's original core business and continuing to carry
access to Usenet - without reams of Thai-language spam - should have
made perfect sense to them.
I'm wondering if that "Usenet is dead" message eminating from PC-rag was
not supplied to the friendly (to Google) journalist by Google as a PR
piece to justify their decision. Google is poorer for having cut
themselves off from that source, but you can't rely on a herd of MBAs to
take a long-term view.

On Mon, 25 Dec 2023 12:05:46 +0100, Andrew <Doug@hyperspace.vogon.gov> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote:
snip
>> They needed to maintain good administration!!
>
>How much it would it have cost Google to have detailed one programmer to
>handle this stuff? Google Groups is revenue-negative on its own, but
>searching is Google's original core business and continuing to carry
>access to Usenet - without reams of Thai-language spam - should have
>made perfect sense to them.
>I'm wondering if that "Usenet is dead" message eminating from PC-rag was
>not supplied to the friendly (to Google) journalist by Google as a PR
>piece to justify their decision. Google is poorer for having cut
>themselves off from that source, but you can't rely on a herd of MBAs to
>take a long-term view.

their "usenet is dead" narrative started before the turn of the century,
yet usenet is still dead decades later and its popularity is increasing;
perhaps their definition of dead simply means alien, outside looking in

In article <umbnmb$19qm0$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
Andrew <Doug@hyperspace.vogon.gov> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote:
>> In article <uma9j9$2nk73$5@dont-email.me>,
>> candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>>> On 12/24/23 02:52, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 02:07:44 +0100
>>>> Timo <timo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> Am 15.12.2023 um 02:55 schrieb Grant Taylor:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted
>>>>>> them to.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it's simply not a profitable service, and that's why it's no
>>>>> longer offered.
>>>>
>>>> ["service" referring to googlegroups]
>>>>
>>>> Google stopped putting adverts on googlegroups many years ago. After that
>>>> how could they make any money from it ? I don't mean actually make profit
>>>> but derive any income whatsoever.
>>>
>>> To be fair, Google has a ton of other services and could probably
>>> survive leaving it up. From a business perspective, however..
>>
>> They needed to maintain good administration!!
>>
>>> --
>>> user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
>>>
>>
>>
>
>How much it would it have cost Google to have detailed one programmer to
>handle this stuff? Google Groups is revenue-negative on its own, but
>searching is Google's original core business and continuing to carry
>access to Usenet - without reams of Thai-language spam - should have
>made perfect sense to them.
>I'm wondering if that "Usenet is dead" message eminating from PC-rag was
>not supplied to the friendly (to Google) journalist by Google as a PR
>piece to justify their decision. Google is poorer for having cut
>themselves off from that source, but you can't rely on a herd of MBAs to
>take a long-term view.

All are idiots for not supporting a pillar of Internet!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

In article <fb2bee4a2d7de91f1dbabbb116ca3b10@dizum.com>, D <J@M> wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Dec 2023 12:05:46 +0100, Andrew <Doug@hyperspace.vogon.gov> wrote:
>>The Doctor wrote:
>snip
>>> They needed to maintain good administration!!
>>
>>How much it would it have cost Google to have detailed one programmer to
>>handle this stuff? Google Groups is revenue-negative on its own, but
>>searching is Google's original core business and continuing to carry
>>access to Usenet - without reams of Thai-language spam - should have
>>made perfect sense to them.
>>I'm wondering if that "Usenet is dead" message eminating from PC-rag was
>>not supplied to the friendly (to Google) journalist by Google as a PR
>>piece to justify their decision. Google is poorer for having cut
>>themselves off from that source, but you can't rely on a herd of MBAs to
>>take a long-term view.
>
>their "usenet is dead" narrative started before the turn of the century,
>yet usenet is still dead decades later and its popularity is increasing;
>perhaps their definition of dead simply means alien, outside looking in
>

Good point!!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com