This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Google Groups article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Google Groups was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
https://support.google.com/groups/thread/61391913?hl=en&msgid=62478151 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.0.26 ( talk) 22:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Wasn't DejaNews called something else before that? Damned if I can remember, but I'm pretty sure it started with an S. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ ( AMA) 16:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone spotted any other outdated images other than the image of the Google Groups homepage when not logged in? -- Troy Plummer 18:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
This I am 100% certain of. The very first web-based USENET indexing site was called REMARQ (remarq.com). The people that started DejaNews acquired remarq and its assests and renamed the site to DejaNews.com. I find it very strange that I can find almost no reference to the even existence of remarq.com anywhere in this article. In fact, its hard to find stuff about it on the web in general.
I swear to god, remarq existed ...somebody else other than me has to remember this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.12.162 ( talk) 07:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
As for the part that said: "At one point in 1998, DejaNews even honored requests to change contents or headers of posts that were already in the archive. Occasionally a person would modify posts made by an adversary by forging their Internet address onto requests to change the posts."
This is actually true. I don't know who deleted this paragraph, but Deja in 1998 definitely did honor requests to change posts, and some of them were modified by forgers. 69.61.208.42 03:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
You are correct. Deja did honor requests to change posts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.147.95 ( talk) 06:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Although I am working on cleaning up the article, and would appreciate feedback on it, you can edit the image tags to position the images properly - I don't know how to do this and if you want, you can explain how at my talk page. In addition, for the unformatted image that appears after the second paragraph in the "Interface and Features" section (NOT the small, right-aligned image), I want to show an external link, which when clicked on, displays a picture, instead of including the picture in the article. How do I do this? J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Although I know that peer review is not the best way to get feedback on a new article, when I sent a {{helpme}} request asking how to get feedback for my articles, I was pointed here. Could someone suggest a better way for me to get feedback on my new articles? J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
The Google Groups article states that "They can also create their own groups and access Usenet newsgroups dating back to 1975." But this is not true because the oldest USENET article dates back to 1981. More Information can be found here: http://www.google.com/googlegroups/archive_announce_20.html - I will change that on the article. Albert Valentin
Google Groups has recently undergone several major updates, particularly to the interface, with new features. Do you think I should take screenshots of the new Google Groups homepage and upload them to the article? I have changed my browser from Mozilla Firefox to Opera, so should I take the screenshots in Opera, given that the current screenshots were taken in Firefox?
In addition, do you think I should include a list of notable Google groups? One such group is Gmail Help Discussion, an official group for Gmail users to ask questions and give answers about Gmail. I know several other official groups that deserve mention, as well as some unofficial groups that deserve mention. For Google groups, the criteria for notability will focus less on Wikipedia's criteria. It will instead focus on the membership count and activity of the group, as well as the content of the group (groups filled with spam will not be included) and its impact on Google Groups as a whole. Usenet groups will not be included. Groups containing adult content will not be included.
I understand the disadvantages of including such a list, such as spam links, so I wish to discuss this with other users before adding the list. Meanwhile, I will discuss on Google Groups to determine which groups will get listed.
In addition, I am considering creating a Google group for Wikipedia, and if it grows large and active enough, I will list it here. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Is Google Groups really beta software? I know google label it as such, but nevertheless I'm unsure whether it warrants the beta software tag. -- Oscarthecat 13:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the article should be more clear about the difference between Google groups and Usenet groups (which appear as the same thing to people who read them through the Google interface): this is not obvious for newbies. Apokrif 15:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Unsourced section. - Samsara ( talk • contribs) 11:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
-- Richard 05:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Digital Millenium Copyright Act
Google Groups is commonly criticized for being a poor Usenet interface. I don't know the details (ie what other Usenet providers have that Google Groups doesn't) since I do use Google Groups, but I've seen the criticisms a million times. There should be a note of that in the criticisms section. I don't know of any official references (which is why I'm not putting it there myself; I don't want to get attacked for WP:NOR), but it's a fact that should be noted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dlevenstein ( talk • contribs) 01:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
I tried out Google Groups and noticed the new version (Beta) which I liked. Now, a few days after, I am no longer able to access any Beta-Groups pages because I get redirected instantly to the old version. This happens in Firefox and IE both, but luckily I am able to get in using Opera, but I don't normally use Opera and I guess nor does that many others, so "in practice" there is a serious problem. At least I suspect it doesn't only happen to me, this redirecting. I did look for information and there are a few pages on the web talking about his error, some are from several years back, I think. 62.16.172.136 14:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I tried to add this before, but it was removed for original research. I would think that Google Groups itself would serve as evidence that it is being criticized to this day. The link I had provided was [3]; just look at the group that that message connects to, and you'll notice users were screaming at Google from the start.
If you look at their Is Something Broken group, you'll notice that half the traffic is people yelling at Google to fix their interface, whether it be hot-headed posting or cool-headed posting the list of bugs and the sad fact of the matter that Google hasn't been there to help.
Does this not constitute as evidence? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dlevenstein ( talk • contribs) 12:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
Image:Google-Groups.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 22:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed a significant part of the feature list since this page looked an awful lot like an originally-researched user guide. Google's own help pages do a perfectly fine job of explaining how the features work. Only features unique to Google Groups or notable in their own right belong in this article. White 720 ( talk) 01:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there any reference as to why Gooogle Groups is 8-12 hours behind on the posting of material since Monday afternoon, 3pm EDT? (18:00 UTC?) MMetro ( talk) 15:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
There have been "brownouts" with Google groups I remember two on usenet in the last 4 or 5 months. Listen to this : at one stage for a whole day no posts were getting through with Gmail at all. That also happened with groups. That is apart from groups disappearing which I believe is a flaw of Usenet on occasion. The issues with Gmail were covered at the time in the press. ( 86.133.61.20 ) Jan 13th 2009
There is a "brownout" going on right now. As of August 3, 2011 I can't find any groups that have had any messages since Aug 1, 2011, including groups with normally heavy traffic. And for 3 days prior to Aug. 1 it was spotty with the groups being caught up in "spurts."
In relation to the browser based editing on Wikipedia that on Google groups is extremely poor and also has no features. It does not manage to retain formatting at all. That is definitely an issue with Google groups IMO as a frequent poster through the service.
Jan 13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.61.20 ( talk) 19:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The ratings for posts have disappeared. Perhaps there were too many complaints about trolls anonymously disparaging other people by trying to load up one star ratings? I'd like to get a reliable source on the matter. MMetro ( talk) 08:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Criticism must be backed up by reliable sources, not just speculation. Google Groups postings themselves are not reliable sources. White 720 ( talk) 22:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Someone edited the article to read 'Google groups is an unreliable web service that sometimes provides...' If you wish to write about problems with the service please put it in the correct section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.249.84.196 ( talk) 18:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
All the archives stop at the end of May, 2009. A temporary problem with Google or an end to archiving?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/browse_thread/thread/059144e1ab43efd1/3634d17dc3c10e26?hl=en#3634d17dc3c10e26 Macshill ( talk) 16:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Because Google Groups is nothing but a big large-scale failure itself, we need to re-add this section.
Google refuses to repair its feature that used to allow people to delete posts made with an earlier e-mail address. Furthermore, it refuses to allow anyone to delete posts that were forged under their address.
I understand that you are upset that Google Groups has not performed to your expectations, but this is not a forum for voicing your disapproval. Please do not reinstate the history of Google Groups failures without verifiable, reliable sources to indicate why the list is notable. If you have concerns with Google Groups, please take them up with Google or use another USENET provider. (And please be civil with your edit summaries; words like "idiotism" are not appropriate.) White 720 ( talk) 05:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi "White 720". Re your requirement for secondary sources. Secondary sources are needed for interpretations and other commentary. For simple facts about an event, only primary sources are needed. Secondary sources, based on primary sources, can only be better for aggregation of facts, checking consistency of a set of facts, statistics and the like. For a single simple fact the primary sources are most reliable, and a requirement of additional secondary sources based on the primary sources is meaningless except as a device to cast the fact in doubt. Which seems to be what you're attempting.
Hi, "White 720". Your change of the section heading to "Moderation backlog" is misleading to the point of deception, since any reader of Wikipedia will think it refers to the Usenet groups, not to a moderation process for Wikipedia itself. The section refers to two recent outages where articles were completely lost, and users were informed by GG (incorrectly) that the articles were posted. I've therefore changed the heading back to "Outages", which is consistent with the heading used for the Wikipedia GMail article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.40.134.161 ( talk) 21:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
We also need to mention the fact that Google Groups has NO customer support. None.
All it has is the "Is There Something Broken?" board - which they don't even read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.147.95 ( talk) 11:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
122.57.221.144 ( talk) 00:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC) (Google posting now working again)
The supposedly reliable source on the November 2009 outage, "Nomadic Psyche," states, "There is a major flaw with the Gooble replication technology that is not replicating changes I make to the internet." White 720 ( talk) 17:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering how can one cite a "reliable source" when there is no public announcement from Google that there even is a problem (which is immediately obvious to anyone attempting to access Usenet through Google Groups between 2011-06-25 and 2011-06-30)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.189.207.114 ( talk) 19:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I removed this phrase from the article: "Sometime around 2008 or 2009 Google also began removing and censoring entire Usenet groups in the alt.* category." - needing a citation since April 2010. It seems to be more due to poor software and/or a poor interface. Could not find any reference to censorship...other that this article... -- 22:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The google-groups usenet search interface hasn't worked properly for years. Why isin't this mentioned in the main article?
Why isin't it mentioned how google apparently doesn't have the ability, or desire, to keep incoming spam and sporge floods out of it's usenet archive, nor does it exercise any competent ability to prevent spam from being posted from it's own google-groups user accounts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.91.219 ( talk) 12:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Since when did Wikipedia turn into Google's tech support forum? I share my fellow netters' frustration with the opacity of Google's "Report a bug" process, but I don't think that the summary of an encyclopedia article is the right place for breaking news or vendors' outage notifications. Likewise, there's no support for the assumption that Google was summarily ending support for Usenet, especially when this company has a history of announcing service/product retirements. Xenophon Fenderson ( talk) 22:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Then where is the right place? There are frequent outages, like the one going on now from Aug 1, 2011 - present (Aug 3, 2011) but there is nowhere on Google that mentions this and nowhere that I can find to report it to Google or ask about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.134.178 ( talk) 01:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I did try that yesterday twice and got error screens. It works today and I left a note. Hopefully their current outage won't go on for too many more days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.183.232.24 ( talk) 13:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Google promises fix for jittery Usenet addicts — "According to a Google spokeswoman, the company has not killed its Usenet service. It'sis merely experiencing some technical difficulties. 'Beginning last week, Groups had intermittent issues with mirroring Usenet messages, that means messages posted to Usenet experienced a delay in appearing in Google Groups. We have identified the issue, and are in the process of patching it. In the next few days, the Usenet archives will catchup and become current again,' she told us." White 720 ( talk) 15:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I think I have observed a change in google searches since about a month ago (it is now 2011 August). If I am correct, it urgently needs to be presented here and discussed in other forums.
Apparently, Google is no longer honoring this statement:
Activities that don't require a Google Account: Reading posts in public groups
from this page: http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=46438
It is increasing impossible to find (non-commercial) information on the net without logging in to Google to read it (other than at Wikipedia, of course! :). This would be a arrogant and nefarious new push of the Google brand at a time when the government is promising us that they will investigate Google monopolistic practices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by W4714261 ( talk • contribs) 05:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
The point is, they seem to be using a new technology where their search engine can find material but users can't - without logging in first. Or is this the way Google Groups has always worked, but there's an explosive new level of use of that "product"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by W4714261 ( talk • contribs) 05:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if alternate seach engines (yahoo is the only one, I guess) can index Google Groups? — Preceding unsigned comment added by W4714261 ( talk • contribs) 06:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I have seen this myself, and tracked it down to bad Google cookies. I verified it as follows: While not logged in to any Google services, perform a google search for anything likely to have a presence on Google Groups ("Google Groups netscape" is a good example). Click on a result that links to groups.google.com. Note the Google sign-in page, with no way to navigate to the actual content of the search result without logging in. Then delete all cookies pertaining to google.com (groups.google.com is not sufficient). Try the above again and it should work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.80.48.19 ( talk) 23:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Google Groups has not been blocked in Turkey from the time I got here (August 2011) until the present. Unfortunately, it is very hard to find up-to-date information in English on censorship here, and particularly what WP considers reliable sources. So, I just thought I'd mention that. — Quintucket ( talk) 17:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
but might someone read only Günther's post? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.10.28.194 ( talk) 03:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Can there be an intro saying what a GG is, and what it can be used for, as things currently stand? Some people may prefer to understand it from an historical development perspective, but many will need to know what it is now, rather than its ontology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.53.2 ( talk) 00:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
There are older posts on gg as you can see with this post made on October 9, 2000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.212.236.153 ( talk) 17:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Google Groups. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Google Groups. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Google Groups is currently also the platform, which Google (since approx. Jan.2012) has been using for some of their Google Help Fora. More specifically those fora officially named "Google Product Forums" (aka. in abbreviated form: GPF), found at productforums.google.com (not groups.google.com, which is reserved & available to anyone with a free consumer Google account, for creating a forum, group, or mailing-list). The productforums.google.com domain is a
G Suite domain, owned and operated by Google. The default GUI skin/theme used for Google's Help Fora (productforums.google.com) is however not available for other
G Suite domains (available by domain registration to anyone). Non-Google owned GSuite domains will use the default Google Groups GUI skin/theme, as is also always used with groups.google.com (and may be used for productforums.google.com as non-default).
--
DexterPointy (
talk)
20:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The article summary box lists "Written in Java" with a citation. The citation points to the very generic login page of some webmail service with absolutely no information about Google Groups nor Java. It seems like at a minimum this citation should be removed. I'm not sure if there is anything else backing up what Google Groups is written in these days. -- Anxiety35 ( talk) 19:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
<ref>{{cite web |url=http://xhtml.net/breves/380-Google-groups-utilise-Java |language=French prior to Google Translate |title=Google groups utilise Java |trans-title=Google groups uses Java |website=xhtml.net |via=translate.google.com |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20101225210726%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fxhtml.net%2Fbreves%2F380-Google-groups-utilise-Java |archive-date=2012-03-21 |date=2007-11-23 |access-date=2019-10-30}}</ref>{{better source needed |date=October 2019}}
In reading this article, it seems like the history of DejaNews is worth having in its own article since Google Groups in many ways is a really different entity. I was thinking of doing this. Do people have strong feelings one way or the other? Jessamyn ( talk) 17:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Google Groups article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Google Groups was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
https://support.google.com/groups/thread/61391913?hl=en&msgid=62478151 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.0.26 ( talk) 22:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Wasn't DejaNews called something else before that? Damned if I can remember, but I'm pretty sure it started with an S. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ ( AMA) 16:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone spotted any other outdated images other than the image of the Google Groups homepage when not logged in? -- Troy Plummer 18:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
This I am 100% certain of. The very first web-based USENET indexing site was called REMARQ (remarq.com). The people that started DejaNews acquired remarq and its assests and renamed the site to DejaNews.com. I find it very strange that I can find almost no reference to the even existence of remarq.com anywhere in this article. In fact, its hard to find stuff about it on the web in general.
I swear to god, remarq existed ...somebody else other than me has to remember this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.12.162 ( talk) 07:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
As for the part that said: "At one point in 1998, DejaNews even honored requests to change contents or headers of posts that were already in the archive. Occasionally a person would modify posts made by an adversary by forging their Internet address onto requests to change the posts."
This is actually true. I don't know who deleted this paragraph, but Deja in 1998 definitely did honor requests to change posts, and some of them were modified by forgers. 69.61.208.42 03:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
You are correct. Deja did honor requests to change posts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.147.95 ( talk) 06:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Although I am working on cleaning up the article, and would appreciate feedback on it, you can edit the image tags to position the images properly - I don't know how to do this and if you want, you can explain how at my talk page. In addition, for the unformatted image that appears after the second paragraph in the "Interface and Features" section (NOT the small, right-aligned image), I want to show an external link, which when clicked on, displays a picture, instead of including the picture in the article. How do I do this? J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Although I know that peer review is not the best way to get feedback on a new article, when I sent a {{helpme}} request asking how to get feedback for my articles, I was pointed here. Could someone suggest a better way for me to get feedback on my new articles? J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
The Google Groups article states that "They can also create their own groups and access Usenet newsgroups dating back to 1975." But this is not true because the oldest USENET article dates back to 1981. More Information can be found here: http://www.google.com/googlegroups/archive_announce_20.html - I will change that on the article. Albert Valentin
Google Groups has recently undergone several major updates, particularly to the interface, with new features. Do you think I should take screenshots of the new Google Groups homepage and upload them to the article? I have changed my browser from Mozilla Firefox to Opera, so should I take the screenshots in Opera, given that the current screenshots were taken in Firefox?
In addition, do you think I should include a list of notable Google groups? One such group is Gmail Help Discussion, an official group for Gmail users to ask questions and give answers about Gmail. I know several other official groups that deserve mention, as well as some unofficial groups that deserve mention. For Google groups, the criteria for notability will focus less on Wikipedia's criteria. It will instead focus on the membership count and activity of the group, as well as the content of the group (groups filled with spam will not be included) and its impact on Google Groups as a whole. Usenet groups will not be included. Groups containing adult content will not be included.
I understand the disadvantages of including such a list, such as spam links, so I wish to discuss this with other users before adding the list. Meanwhile, I will discuss on Google Groups to determine which groups will get listed.
In addition, I am considering creating a Google group for Wikipedia, and if it grows large and active enough, I will list it here. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Is Google Groups really beta software? I know google label it as such, but nevertheless I'm unsure whether it warrants the beta software tag. -- Oscarthecat 13:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the article should be more clear about the difference between Google groups and Usenet groups (which appear as the same thing to people who read them through the Google interface): this is not obvious for newbies. Apokrif 15:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Unsourced section. - Samsara ( talk • contribs) 11:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
-- Richard 05:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Digital Millenium Copyright Act
Google Groups is commonly criticized for being a poor Usenet interface. I don't know the details (ie what other Usenet providers have that Google Groups doesn't) since I do use Google Groups, but I've seen the criticisms a million times. There should be a note of that in the criticisms section. I don't know of any official references (which is why I'm not putting it there myself; I don't want to get attacked for WP:NOR), but it's a fact that should be noted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dlevenstein ( talk • contribs) 01:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
I tried out Google Groups and noticed the new version (Beta) which I liked. Now, a few days after, I am no longer able to access any Beta-Groups pages because I get redirected instantly to the old version. This happens in Firefox and IE both, but luckily I am able to get in using Opera, but I don't normally use Opera and I guess nor does that many others, so "in practice" there is a serious problem. At least I suspect it doesn't only happen to me, this redirecting. I did look for information and there are a few pages on the web talking about his error, some are from several years back, I think. 62.16.172.136 14:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I tried to add this before, but it was removed for original research. I would think that Google Groups itself would serve as evidence that it is being criticized to this day. The link I had provided was [3]; just look at the group that that message connects to, and you'll notice users were screaming at Google from the start.
If you look at their Is Something Broken group, you'll notice that half the traffic is people yelling at Google to fix their interface, whether it be hot-headed posting or cool-headed posting the list of bugs and the sad fact of the matter that Google hasn't been there to help.
Does this not constitute as evidence? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dlevenstein ( talk • contribs) 12:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
Image:Google-Groups.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 22:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed a significant part of the feature list since this page looked an awful lot like an originally-researched user guide. Google's own help pages do a perfectly fine job of explaining how the features work. Only features unique to Google Groups or notable in their own right belong in this article. White 720 ( talk) 01:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there any reference as to why Gooogle Groups is 8-12 hours behind on the posting of material since Monday afternoon, 3pm EDT? (18:00 UTC?) MMetro ( talk) 15:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
There have been "brownouts" with Google groups I remember two on usenet in the last 4 or 5 months. Listen to this : at one stage for a whole day no posts were getting through with Gmail at all. That also happened with groups. That is apart from groups disappearing which I believe is a flaw of Usenet on occasion. The issues with Gmail were covered at the time in the press. ( 86.133.61.20 ) Jan 13th 2009
There is a "brownout" going on right now. As of August 3, 2011 I can't find any groups that have had any messages since Aug 1, 2011, including groups with normally heavy traffic. And for 3 days prior to Aug. 1 it was spotty with the groups being caught up in "spurts."
In relation to the browser based editing on Wikipedia that on Google groups is extremely poor and also has no features. It does not manage to retain formatting at all. That is definitely an issue with Google groups IMO as a frequent poster through the service.
Jan 13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.61.20 ( talk) 19:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The ratings for posts have disappeared. Perhaps there were too many complaints about trolls anonymously disparaging other people by trying to load up one star ratings? I'd like to get a reliable source on the matter. MMetro ( talk) 08:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Criticism must be backed up by reliable sources, not just speculation. Google Groups postings themselves are not reliable sources. White 720 ( talk) 22:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Someone edited the article to read 'Google groups is an unreliable web service that sometimes provides...' If you wish to write about problems with the service please put it in the correct section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.249.84.196 ( talk) 18:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
All the archives stop at the end of May, 2009. A temporary problem with Google or an end to archiving?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/browse_thread/thread/059144e1ab43efd1/3634d17dc3c10e26?hl=en#3634d17dc3c10e26 Macshill ( talk) 16:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Because Google Groups is nothing but a big large-scale failure itself, we need to re-add this section.
Google refuses to repair its feature that used to allow people to delete posts made with an earlier e-mail address. Furthermore, it refuses to allow anyone to delete posts that were forged under their address.
I understand that you are upset that Google Groups has not performed to your expectations, but this is not a forum for voicing your disapproval. Please do not reinstate the history of Google Groups failures without verifiable, reliable sources to indicate why the list is notable. If you have concerns with Google Groups, please take them up with Google or use another USENET provider. (And please be civil with your edit summaries; words like "idiotism" are not appropriate.) White 720 ( talk) 05:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi "White 720". Re your requirement for secondary sources. Secondary sources are needed for interpretations and other commentary. For simple facts about an event, only primary sources are needed. Secondary sources, based on primary sources, can only be better for aggregation of facts, checking consistency of a set of facts, statistics and the like. For a single simple fact the primary sources are most reliable, and a requirement of additional secondary sources based on the primary sources is meaningless except as a device to cast the fact in doubt. Which seems to be what you're attempting.
Hi, "White 720". Your change of the section heading to "Moderation backlog" is misleading to the point of deception, since any reader of Wikipedia will think it refers to the Usenet groups, not to a moderation process for Wikipedia itself. The section refers to two recent outages where articles were completely lost, and users were informed by GG (incorrectly) that the articles were posted. I've therefore changed the heading back to "Outages", which is consistent with the heading used for the Wikipedia GMail article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.40.134.161 ( talk) 21:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
We also need to mention the fact that Google Groups has NO customer support. None.
All it has is the "Is There Something Broken?" board - which they don't even read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.147.95 ( talk) 11:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
122.57.221.144 ( talk) 00:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC) (Google posting now working again)
The supposedly reliable source on the November 2009 outage, "Nomadic Psyche," states, "There is a major flaw with the Gooble replication technology that is not replicating changes I make to the internet." White 720 ( talk) 17:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering how can one cite a "reliable source" when there is no public announcement from Google that there even is a problem (which is immediately obvious to anyone attempting to access Usenet through Google Groups between 2011-06-25 and 2011-06-30)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.189.207.114 ( talk) 19:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I removed this phrase from the article: "Sometime around 2008 or 2009 Google also began removing and censoring entire Usenet groups in the alt.* category." - needing a citation since April 2010. It seems to be more due to poor software and/or a poor interface. Could not find any reference to censorship...other that this article... -- 22:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The google-groups usenet search interface hasn't worked properly for years. Why isin't this mentioned in the main article?
Why isin't it mentioned how google apparently doesn't have the ability, or desire, to keep incoming spam and sporge floods out of it's usenet archive, nor does it exercise any competent ability to prevent spam from being posted from it's own google-groups user accounts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.91.219 ( talk) 12:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Since when did Wikipedia turn into Google's tech support forum? I share my fellow netters' frustration with the opacity of Google's "Report a bug" process, but I don't think that the summary of an encyclopedia article is the right place for breaking news or vendors' outage notifications. Likewise, there's no support for the assumption that Google was summarily ending support for Usenet, especially when this company has a history of announcing service/product retirements. Xenophon Fenderson ( talk) 22:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Then where is the right place? There are frequent outages, like the one going on now from Aug 1, 2011 - present (Aug 3, 2011) but there is nowhere on Google that mentions this and nowhere that I can find to report it to Google or ask about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.134.178 ( talk) 01:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I did try that yesterday twice and got error screens. It works today and I left a note. Hopefully their current outage won't go on for too many more days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.183.232.24 ( talk) 13:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Google promises fix for jittery Usenet addicts — "According to a Google spokeswoman, the company has not killed its Usenet service. It'sis merely experiencing some technical difficulties. 'Beginning last week, Groups had intermittent issues with mirroring Usenet messages, that means messages posted to Usenet experienced a delay in appearing in Google Groups. We have identified the issue, and are in the process of patching it. In the next few days, the Usenet archives will catchup and become current again,' she told us." White 720 ( talk) 15:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I think I have observed a change in google searches since about a month ago (it is now 2011 August). If I am correct, it urgently needs to be presented here and discussed in other forums.
Apparently, Google is no longer honoring this statement:
Activities that don't require a Google Account: Reading posts in public groups
from this page: http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=46438
It is increasing impossible to find (non-commercial) information on the net without logging in to Google to read it (other than at Wikipedia, of course! :). This would be a arrogant and nefarious new push of the Google brand at a time when the government is promising us that they will investigate Google monopolistic practices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by W4714261 ( talk • contribs) 05:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
The point is, they seem to be using a new technology where their search engine can find material but users can't - without logging in first. Or is this the way Google Groups has always worked, but there's an explosive new level of use of that "product"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by W4714261 ( talk • contribs) 05:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if alternate seach engines (yahoo is the only one, I guess) can index Google Groups? — Preceding unsigned comment added by W4714261 ( talk • contribs) 06:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I have seen this myself, and tracked it down to bad Google cookies. I verified it as follows: While not logged in to any Google services, perform a google search for anything likely to have a presence on Google Groups ("Google Groups netscape" is a good example). Click on a result that links to groups.google.com. Note the Google sign-in page, with no way to navigate to the actual content of the search result without logging in. Then delete all cookies pertaining to google.com (groups.google.com is not sufficient). Try the above again and it should work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.80.48.19 ( talk) 23:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Google Groups has not been blocked in Turkey from the time I got here (August 2011) until the present. Unfortunately, it is very hard to find up-to-date information in English on censorship here, and particularly what WP considers reliable sources. So, I just thought I'd mention that. — Quintucket ( talk) 17:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
but might someone read only Günther's post? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.10.28.194 ( talk) 03:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Can there be an intro saying what a GG is, and what it can be used for, as things currently stand? Some people may prefer to understand it from an historical development perspective, but many will need to know what it is now, rather than its ontology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.53.2 ( talk) 00:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
There are older posts on gg as you can see with this post made on October 9, 2000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.212.236.153 ( talk) 17:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Google Groups. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Google Groups. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Google Groups is currently also the platform, which Google (since approx. Jan.2012) has been using for some of their Google Help Fora. More specifically those fora officially named "Google Product Forums" (aka. in abbreviated form: GPF), found at productforums.google.com (not groups.google.com, which is reserved & available to anyone with a free consumer Google account, for creating a forum, group, or mailing-list). The productforums.google.com domain is a
G Suite domain, owned and operated by Google. The default GUI skin/theme used for Google's Help Fora (productforums.google.com) is however not available for other
G Suite domains (available by domain registration to anyone). Non-Google owned GSuite domains will use the default Google Groups GUI skin/theme, as is also always used with groups.google.com (and may be used for productforums.google.com as non-default).
--
DexterPointy (
talk)
20:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The article summary box lists "Written in Java" with a citation. The citation points to the very generic login page of some webmail service with absolutely no information about Google Groups nor Java. It seems like at a minimum this citation should be removed. I'm not sure if there is anything else backing up what Google Groups is written in these days. -- Anxiety35 ( talk) 19:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
<ref>{{cite web |url=http://xhtml.net/breves/380-Google-groups-utilise-Java |language=French prior to Google Translate |title=Google groups utilise Java |trans-title=Google groups uses Java |website=xhtml.net |via=translate.google.com |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20101225210726%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fxhtml.net%2Fbreves%2F380-Google-groups-utilise-Java |archive-date=2012-03-21 |date=2007-11-23 |access-date=2019-10-30}}</ref>{{better source needed |date=October 2019}}
In reading this article, it seems like the history of DejaNews is worth having in its own article since Google Groups in many ways is a really different entity. I was thinking of doing this. Do people have strong feelings one way or the other? Jessamyn ( talk) 17:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)