So, I was trying to do a search of the group archives using Google
Groups. It seems that I'm only getting results from the past month. I
did a test search on the term 'saw' and only got 280 results, with the
oldest being from July 9.
I've looked all over in the groups preferences and so on, but cannot
find anything that would set a limit on the age of the results. Any
one have the same problem, or a fix?
Larry <[email protected]> wrote in news:Xns9C57E5765BBBnone@
216.151.153.60:
>
> Scroll down to 2001 and look at the first company aquisition.
> To the best of my knowledge, Google does not remove newsgroup
> posts, ever.
>
> Larry
>
FWIW, they seem to respect X-No-Archive. I've seen messages that were
going to disappear in a few days when the X-No-Archive timeout expired.
Puckdropper
--
"The potential difference between the top and bottom of a tree is the
reason why all trees have to be grounded..." -- Bored Borg on
rec.woodworking
To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:30:00 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Gordon Shumway wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:29:24 -0700 (PDT), Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> So, I was trying to do a search of the group archives using Google
>>> Groups. It seems that I'm only getting results from the past month. I
>>> did a test search on the term 'saw' and only got 280 results, with
>>> the oldest being from July 9.
>>>
>>> I've looked all over in the groups preferences and so on, but cannot
>>> find anything that would set a limit on the age of the results. Any
>>> one have the same problem, or a fix?
>>
>> Get yourself a news reader and use a news server instead of Google.
>
>A news readar and news server is not a substitute for the dejanews archive
>that Google maintains, containing posts going back into the late '80s.
>
I'm not too sure about your "dejanews archive" statement. I just
looked at Google Groups for the first time tonight. There are
currently 216,000+ messages archived in this group at Google. At the
same time there are also 216,000+ messages on NewsGuy. Actually there
are a few hundred more on newsguy than Google but who's counting.
With that information I wouldn't be surprised to know that Google is
maintaining a Newsguy archive.
Gordon Shumway
On Jul 29, 8:37=A0pm, Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:30:00 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Gordon Shumway wrote:
> >> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:29:24 -0700 (PDT), Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> So, I was trying to do a search of the group archives using Google
> >>> Groups. It seems that I'm only getting results from the past month. I
> >>> did a test search on the term 'saw' and only got 280 results, with
> >>> the oldest being from July 9.
>
> >>> I've looked all over in the groups preferences and so on, but cannot
> >>> find anything that would set a limit on the age of the results. Any
> >>> one have the same problem, or a fix?
>
> >> Get yourself a news reader and use a news server instead of Google.
>
> >A news readar and news server is not a substitute for the dejanews archi=
ve
> >that Google maintains, containing posts going back into the late '80s.
>
> I'm not too sure about your "dejanews archive" statement. =A0I just
> looked at Google Groups for the first time tonight. =A0There are
> currently 216,000+ messages archived in this group at Google. =A0At the
> same time there are also 216,000+ messages on NewsGuy. =A0Actually there
> are a few hundred more on newsguy than Google but who's counting.
>
> With that information I wouldn't be surprised to know that Google is
> maintaining a Newsguy archive.
You can see a whole lot of rec.woodworking posts archived by Google
back to 1994 or so on my humour page.
http://www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/humour.html
Luigi
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:29:24 -0700 (PDT), Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
>So, I was trying to do a search of the group archives using Google
>Groups. It seems that I'm only getting results from the past month. I
>did a test search on the term 'saw' and only got 280 results, with the
>oldest being from July 9.
>
>I've looked all over in the groups preferences and so on, but cannot
>find anything that would set a limit on the age of the results. Any
>one have the same problem, or a fix?
Get yourself a news reader and use a news server instead of Google.
Gordon Shumway
Mike wrote:
> So, I was trying to do a search of the group archives using Google
> Groups. It seems that I'm only getting results from the past month. I
> did a test search on the term 'saw' and only got 280 results, with the
> oldest being from July 9.
>
> I've looked all over in the groups preferences and so on, but cannot
> find anything that would set a limit on the age of the results. Any
> one have the same problem, or a fix?
You are right, something is at least broken temporarily.
Hopefully not permanent.
--
Froz...
On Jul 29, 11:48=A0pm, Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 30 Jul 2009 03:35:52 GMT, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Larry <[email protected]> wrote in
> >news:[email protected]:
>
> >> Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>news:[email protected]:
>
> >>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:54:15 -0500, Tom Veatch
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>>On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:46:50 -0500, Gordon Shumway
> >>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>>>Get yourself a news reader and use a news server instead
> >>>>>of Google.
>
> >>>>I believe the typical news server doesn't archive the
> >>>>content. If that's the case, the only posts that would be
> >>>>available would be those within that server's retention
> >>>>policy which varies from provider to provider.
>
> >>>>There may be more complete archives of specific groups,
> >>>>but it's my understanding that Google Groups is probably
> >>>>the most complete (least incomplete?) general archive
> >>>>available.
>
> >>>>Tom Veatch
> >>>>Wichita, KS
> >>>>USA
>
> >>> Tom,
>
> >>> Currently there are over 30,000 posts on Newsguy that
> >>> match the OP's criteria. =A0The oldest is dated May of 2005.
> >>> =A0I have no idea how long Google retains posts for but I
> >>> would think it wouldn't be that long.
>
> >>> Gordon Shumway
>
> >> Scroll down to 2001 and look at the first company
> >> aquisition. To the best of my knowledge, Google does not
> >> remove newsgroup posts, ever.
>
> >> Larry
>
> >I guess if I wasn't a dumbass I could have included the link.
>
> >http://www.google.com/corporate/history.html
>
> Larry,
>
> See my reply to J.Clarke. =A0I didn't sort Google by date to find the
> oldest message because I couldn't find how to sort. =A0How old is the
> oldest message at google for this group? =A0Is it older than Newsguy's
> May of 2005?
>
> Gordon Shumway
I regularly get results from 1998 and earlier when doing basic
searches.
I just recently tried to look up some information on solid surface
countertops in here, because it's a regularly discussed topic, and I
got 1 result, and that was with "Corian." I couldn't even use "solid
surface counter" and get any hits.
Hopefully they get this cleared up soon.
On 7/29/2009 6:54 PM Tom Veatch spake thus:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:46:50 -0500, Gordon Shumway
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Get yourself a news reader and use a news server instead of Google.
>
> I believe the typical news server doesn't archive the content. If
> that's the case, the only posts that would be available would be those
> within that server's retention policy which varies from provider to
> provider.
>
> There may be more complete archives of specific groups, but it's my
> understanding that Google Groups is probably the most complete (least
> incomplete?) general archive available.
Someone should compose a requiem for DejaNews, which was a hundred times
better than Google's fucked-up implementation of an internet archive
(complete with non-altruistic profit motive, unlike Deja).
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
On 7/30/2009 7:40 AM Jack Stein spake thus:
> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
>> Someone should compose a requiem for DejaNews, which was a hundred times
>> better than Google's fucked-up implementation of an internet archive
>> (complete with non-altruistic profit motive, unlike Deja).
>
> Except, Deja is GONE!
Well, that's my point.
> Not to mention I have never had to pay Google a dime, for anything from
> which they profit. In fact, I often marvel at how much they are worth,
> considering they charge consumers nothing for their services. Not bad
> for a company with a "non-altruistic profit motive"
Of course they don't charge users for their services. But think for a
minute about how they make their money, and who pays them for what.
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:54:15 -0500, Tom Veatch <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:46:50 -0500, Gordon Shumway
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Get yourself a news reader and use a news server instead of Google.
>
>I believe the typical news server doesn't archive the content. If
>that's the case, the only posts that would be available would be those
>within that server's retention policy which varies from provider to
>provider.
>
>There may be more complete archives of specific groups, but it's my
>understanding that Google Groups is probably the most complete (least
>incomplete?) general archive available.
>
>
>
>Tom Veatch
>Wichita, KS
>USA
>
Tom,
Currently there are over 30,000 posts on Newsguy that match the OP's
criteria. The oldest is dated May of 2005. I have no idea how long
Google retains posts for but I would think it wouldn't be that long.
Gordon Shumway
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> A news readar and news server is not a substitute for the dejanews archive
> that Google maintains, containing posts going back into the late '80s.
Google is not a substitute for the dejanews archive, which Google lost.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> phorbin wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> > says...
> >
> >> A news readar and news server is not a substitute for the dejanews
> >> archive that Google maintains, containing posts going back into the
> >> late '80s.
> >
> > Google is not a substitute for the dejanews archive, which Google
> > lost.
>
> When did this loss occur?
>
It was a failed attempt to migrate the Dejanews database to Google. I
don't know how much they lost, but every thing I'd written was erased
from the record and I'd been a participant all over the place for a long
time.
There was a sorta oops, we broke it permanently message when it
happened. --I'll admit to wondering if they meant to break it.
The information is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deja_News
Gordon Shumway wrote:
> On 30 Jul 2009 03:35:52 GMT, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Larry <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>
>>>Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:54:15 -0500, Tom Veatch
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:46:50 -0500, Gordon Shumway
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Get yourself a news reader and use a news server instead
>>>>>>of Google.
>>>>>
>>>>>I believe the typical news server doesn't archive the
>>>>>content. If that's the case, the only posts that would be
>>>>>available would be those within that server's retention
>>>>>policy which varies from provider to provider.
>>>>>
>>>>>There may be more complete archives of specific groups,
>>>>>but it's my understanding that Google Groups is probably
>>>>>the most complete (least incomplete?) general archive
>>>>>available.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Tom Veatch
>>>>>Wichita, KS
>>>>>USA
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Tom,
>>>>
>>>>Currently there are over 30,000 posts on Newsguy that
>>>>match the OP's criteria. The oldest is dated May of 2005.
>>>> I have no idea how long Google retains posts for but I
>>>>would think it wouldn't be that long.
>>>>
>>>>Gordon Shumway
>>>>
>>>
>>>Scroll down to 2001 and look at the first company
>>>aquisition. To the best of my knowledge, Google does not
>>>remove newsgroup posts, ever.
>>>
>>>Larry
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I guess if I wasn't a dumbass I could have included the link.
>>
>>http://www.google.com/corporate/history.html
>
>
> Larry,
>
> See my reply to J.Clarke. I didn't sort Google by date to find the
> oldest message because I couldn't find how to sort. How old is the
> oldest message at google for this group? Is it older than Newsguy's
> May of 2005?
>
> Gordon Shumway
At one point the DejaNews archives, which was sold to eBay in 2000 and
then to Google in 2001, contained the messages back to 1981.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deja_News
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]
Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:54:15 -0500, Tom Veatch
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:46:50 -0500, Gordon Shumway
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Get yourself a news reader and use a news server instead
>>>of Google.
>>
>>I believe the typical news server doesn't archive the
>>content. If that's the case, the only posts that would be
>>available would be those within that server's retention
>>policy which varies from provider to provider.
>>
>>There may be more complete archives of specific groups, but
>>it's my understanding that Google Groups is probably the
>>most complete (least incomplete?) general archive
>>available.
>>
>>
>>
>>Tom Veatch
>>Wichita, KS
>>USA
>>
>
> Tom,
>
> Currently there are over 30,000 posts on Newsguy that match
> the OP's criteria. The oldest is dated May of 2005. I
> have no idea how long Google retains posts for but I would
> think it wouldn't be that long.
>
> Gordon Shumway
>
Scroll down to 2001 and look at the first company aquisition.
To the best of my knowledge, Google does not remove newsgroup
posts, ever.
Larry
Larry <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:54:15 -0500, Tom Veatch
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:46:50 -0500, Gordon Shumway
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Get yourself a news reader and use a news server instead
>>>>of Google.
>>>
>>>I believe the typical news server doesn't archive the
>>>content. If that's the case, the only posts that would be
>>>available would be those within that server's retention
>>>policy which varies from provider to provider.
>>>
>>>There may be more complete archives of specific groups,
>>>but it's my understanding that Google Groups is probably
>>>the most complete (least incomplete?) general archive
>>>available.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Tom Veatch
>>>Wichita, KS
>>>USA
>>>
>>
>> Tom,
>>
>> Currently there are over 30,000 posts on Newsguy that
>> match the OP's criteria. The oldest is dated May of 2005.
>> I have no idea how long Google retains posts for but I
>> would think it wouldn't be that long.
>>
>> Gordon Shumway
>>
>
> Scroll down to 2001 and look at the first company
> aquisition. To the best of my knowledge, Google does not
> remove newsgroup posts, ever.
>
> Larry
>
>
I guess if I wasn't a dumbass I could have included the link.
http://www.google.com/corporate/history.html
Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> See my reply to J.Clarke. I didn't sort Google by date to
> find the oldest message because I couldn't find how to
> sort. How old is the oldest message at google for this
> group? Is it older than Newsguy's May of 2005?
>
> Gordon Shumway
I just did a quick search and found posts as far back as Dec
1992. Are we using the same Google Groups? ;o}
Larry
Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>>
>>Larry
>
> Here is where I went:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?lnk=srgmt&q=rec.woodwork
> ing
>
> I don't know of any other. But then I only went there
> yesterday for the first time :)
>
> Gordon Shumway
>
Then click on "Advanced Search".
Pick a date range of 1/1/1992 - 1/1/1993
In the field below that put in rec.woodworking.
Leave everything else blank and click on the Advanced Search
button.
What I see is 3110 messages that meet that criteria.
Larry
On 31 Jul 2009 02:20:37 GMT, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> See my reply to J.Clarke. I didn't sort Google by date to
>> find the oldest message because I couldn't find how to
>> sort. How old is the oldest message at google for this
>> group? Is it older than Newsguy's May of 2005?
>>
>> Gordon Shumway
>
>I just did a quick search and found posts as far back as Dec
>1992. Are we using the same Google Groups? ;o}
>
>Larry
Here is where I went:
http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?lnk=srgmt&q=rec.woodworking
I don't know of any other. But then I only went there yesterday for
the first time :)
Gordon Shumway
Mike wrote:
> So, I was trying to do a search of the group archives using Google
> Groups. It seems that I'm only getting results from the past month. I
> did a test search on the term 'saw' and only got 280 results, with the
> oldest being from July 9.
>
> I've looked all over in the groups preferences and so on, but cannot
> find anything that would set a limit on the age of the results. Any
> one have the same problem, or a fix?
"Hello All,
Currently some Google Groups are not being indexed and thus new
content is not showing up in search results. We're aware of the issue
and hope to have it resolved shortly. Thanks for your patience."
The Google Groups Team
http://groups.google.com/group/groupsknownissues/browse_thread/thread/d88d02f269a7d20d
That says that "new content" is not showing up but what you found, and I
verified, is that older content isn't being shown. Maybe the two are
related.
Tanus
Gordon Shumway wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:29:24 -0700 (PDT), Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> So, I was trying to do a search of the group archives using Google
>> Groups. It seems that I'm only getting results from the past month. I
>> did a test search on the term 'saw' and only got 280 results, with
>> the oldest being from July 9.
>>
>> I've looked all over in the groups preferences and so on, but cannot
>> find anything that would set a limit on the age of the results. Any
>> one have the same problem, or a fix?
>
> Get yourself a news reader and use a news server instead of Google.
A news readar and news server is not a substitute for the dejanews archive
that Google maintains, containing posts going back into the late '80s.
Mike wrote:
> So, I was trying to do a search of the group archives using Google
> Groups. It seems that I'm only getting results from the past month. I
> did a test search on the term 'saw' and only got 280 results, with the
> oldest being from July 9.
>
> I've looked all over in the groups preferences and so on, but cannot
> find anything that would set a limit on the age of the results. Any
> one have the same problem, or a fix?
Somehow Google has managed to hose their indexes. Give it a few days and it
will probably be working again and some other group will be busted.
Gordon Shumway wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:30:00 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Gordon Shumway wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:29:24 -0700 (PDT), Mike <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, I was trying to do a search of the group archives using Google
>>>> Groups. It seems that I'm only getting results from the past
>>>> month. I did a test search on the term 'saw' and only got 280
>>>> results, with the oldest being from July 9.
>>>>
>>>> I've looked all over in the groups preferences and so on, but
>>>> cannot find anything that would set a limit on the age of the
>>>> results. Any one have the same problem, or a fix?
>>>
>>> Get yourself a news reader and use a news server instead of Google.
>>
>> A news readar and news server is not a substitute for the dejanews
>> archive that Google maintains, containing posts going back into the
>> late '80s.
>>
>
> I'm not too sure about your "dejanews archive" statement.
Read the wikipedia entry on "dejanews". If you are doubting the existence
of dejanews, google it. If you are doubting that Google took over the
archive, go to http://www.dejanews.com and see what you get. If you doubt
that the archive goes back to the 1980s then go to http://www.dejanews.com,
click "advanced search", set the Message Dates to 1 Jan 1981 to 1 Jan 1982,
and for "Group" put "*" (without the quotes), and see what you get.
> I just
> looked at Google Groups for the first time tonight. There are
> currently 216,000+ messages archived in this group at Google. At the
> same time there are also 216,000+ messages on NewsGuy. Actually there
> are a few hundred more on newsguy than Google but who's counting.
>
> With that information I wouldn't be surprised to know that Google is
> maintaining a Newsguy archive.
>
> Gordon Shumway
Gordon Shumway wrote:
> On 30 Jul 2009 03:35:52 GMT, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Larry <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:54:15 -0500, Tom Veatch
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:46:50 -0500, Gordon Shumway
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Get yourself a news reader and use a news server instead
>>>>>> of Google.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe the typical news server doesn't archive the
>>>>> content. If that's the case, the only posts that would be
>>>>> available would be those within that server's retention
>>>>> policy which varies from provider to provider.
>>>>>
>>>>> There may be more complete archives of specific groups,
>>>>> but it's my understanding that Google Groups is probably
>>>>> the most complete (least incomplete?) general archive
>>>>> available.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom Veatch
>>>>> Wichita, KS
>>>>> USA
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tom,
>>>>
>>>> Currently there are over 30,000 posts on Newsguy that
>>>> match the OP's criteria. The oldest is dated May of 2005.
>>>> I have no idea how long Google retains posts for but I
>>>> would think it wouldn't be that long.
>>>>
>>>> Gordon Shumway
>>>>
>>>
>>> Scroll down to 2001 and look at the first company
>>> aquisition. To the best of my knowledge, Google does not
>>> remove newsgroup posts, ever.
>>>
>>> Larry
>>>
>>>
>> I guess if I wasn't a dumbass I could have included the link.
>>
>> http://www.google.com/corporate/history.html
>
> Larry,
>
> See my reply to J.Clarke. I didn't sort Google by date to find the
> oldest message because I couldn't find how to sort. How old is the
> oldest message at google for this group? Is it older than Newsguy's
> May of 2005?
December 20, 1990.
Gordon Shumway wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:54:15 -0500, Tom Veatch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:46:50 -0500, Gordon Shumway
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Get yourself a news reader and use a news server instead of Google.
>>
>> I believe the typical news server doesn't archive the content. If
>> that's the case, the only posts that would be available would be
>> those within that server's retention policy which varies from
>> provider to provider.
>>
>> There may be more complete archives of specific groups, but it's my
>> understanding that Google Groups is probably the most complete (least
>> incomplete?) general archive available.
>>
>>
>>
>> Tom Veatch
>> Wichita, KS
>> USA
>>
>
> Tom,
>
> Currently there are over 30,000 posts on Newsguy that match the OP's
> criteria. The oldest is dated May of 2005. I have no idea how long
> Google retains posts for but I would think it wouldn't be that long.
Well, Gordon, you think wrong. Google Groups is what used to be known as
"dejanews", whose sole purpose to existence was an attempt to archive
_everything_ that had _ever_ been posted on USENET. When Google took over
deja, they had posts going back to 1996. Google has since obtained several
other archives that contain posts going back to 1981.
Where Google went wrong was when they decided to compete with USENET instead
of just archiving it.
Larry wrote:
> Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:54:15 -0500, Tom Veatch
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:46:50 -0500, Gordon Shumway
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Get yourself a news reader and use a news server instead
>>>> of Google.
>>>
>>> I believe the typical news server doesn't archive the
>>> content. If that's the case, the only posts that would be
>>> available would be those within that server's retention
>>> policy which varies from provider to provider.
>>>
>>> There may be more complete archives of specific groups, but
>>> it's my understanding that Google Groups is probably the
>>> most complete (least incomplete?) general archive
>>> available.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tom Veatch
>>> Wichita, KS
>>> USA
>>>
>>
>> Tom,
>>
>> Currently there are over 30,000 posts on Newsguy that match
>> the OP's criteria. The oldest is dated May of 2005. I
>> have no idea how long Google retains posts for but I would
>> think it wouldn't be that long.
>>
>> Gordon Shumway
>>
>
> Scroll down to 2001 and look at the first company aquisition.
> To the best of my knowledge, Google does not remove newsgroup
> posts, ever.
They will on request, under some circumstances.
Puckdropper wrote:
> Larry <[email protected]> wrote in news:Xns9C57E5765BBBnone@
> 216.151.153.60:
>
>>
>> Scroll down to 2001 and look at the first company aquisition.
>> To the best of my knowledge, Google does not remove newsgroup
>> posts, ever.
>>
>> Larry
>>
>
> FWIW, they seem to respect X-No-Archive. I've seen messages that were
> going to disappear in a few days when the X-No-Archive timeout
> expired.
x-no-archive originated with deja so of course deja honors it.
David Nebenzahl wrote:
> Someone should compose a requiem for DejaNews, which was a hundred times
> better than Google's fucked-up implementation of an internet archive
> (complete with non-altruistic profit motive, unlike Deja).
Except, Deja is GONE! If it weren't for Googles "non-altruistic profit
motive" so would the archives be gone...
Not to mention I have never had to pay Google a dime, for anything from
which they profit. In fact, I often marvel at how much they are worth,
considering they charge consumers nothing for their services. Not bad
for a company with a "non-altruistic profit motive"
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com
Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
: So, I was trying to do a search of the group archives using Google
: Groups. It seems that I'm only getting results from the past month. I
: did a test search on the term 'saw' and only got 280 results, with the
: oldest being from July 9.
: I've looked all over in the groups preferences and so on, but cannot
: find anything that would set a limit on the age of the results. Any
: one have the same problem, or a fix?
I've been having problems searching newsgroups on Google for months now.
If you go to "advanced search", there is a date delimiter, but
more often than not I can't retrieve posts I know exist even if
I set the date rang for the last ten years.
Something's awry.
-- Andy Barss
Gordon Shumway wrote:
> On 31 Jul 2009 02:20:37 GMT, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>>
>>> See my reply to J.Clarke. I didn't sort Google by date to
>>> find the oldest message because I couldn't find how to
>>> sort. How old is the oldest message at google for this
>>> group? Is it older than Newsguy's May of 2005?
>>>
>>> Gordon Shumway
>>
>> I just did a quick search and found posts as far back as Dec
>> 1992. Are we using the same Google Groups? ;o}
>>
>> Larry
>
> Here is where I went:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?lnk=srgmt&q=rec.woodworking
>
> I don't know of any other. But then I only went there yesterday for
> the first time :)
That page doesn't have a sort--to find the oldest message you have to use
the advanced search.
David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 7/30/2009 7:40 AM Jack Stein spake thus:
>
>> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>>
>>> Someone should compose a requiem for DejaNews, which was a hundred
>>> times better than Google's fucked-up implementation of an internet
>>> archive (complete with non-altruistic profit motive, unlike Deja).
>>
>> Except, Deja is GONE!
>
> Well, that's my point.
I thought your point was Deja was 100 times better and was altruistic?
My point, specifically was, and is, it ain't better if it ain't there.
>> Not to mention I have never had to pay Google a dime, for anything
>> from which they profit. In fact, I often marvel at how much they are
>> worth, considering they charge consumers nothing for their services.
>> Not bad for a company with a "non-altruistic profit motive"
> Of course they don't charge users for their services. But think for a
> minute about how they make their money, and who pays them for what.
Thats the real beauty of it, they get money from advertising I guess,
and it is almost totally non-intrusive and keeps me informed about what
is out there if I wish to be so informed. Because they have a
non-altruistic profit motive, I get free Google searches, free Google
archives, free Google maps, free Google earth, free Google sketchup,
free Google images, free Google photo storage and cataloging and so on
and so forth.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com
phorbin wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>
>> A news readar and news server is not a substitute for the dejanews
>> archive that Google maintains, containing posts going back into the
>> late '80s.
>
> Google is not a substitute for the dejanews archive, which Google
> lost.
When did this loss occur?
In article <[email protected]>, phorbin <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>says...
>> phorbin wrote:
>> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>> > says...
>> >
>> >> A news readar and news server is not a substitute for the dejanews
>> >> archive that Google maintains, containing posts going back into the
>> >> late '80s.
>> >
>> > Google is not a substitute for the dejanews archive, which Google
>> > lost.
>>
>> When did this loss occur?
>>
>
>It was a failed attempt to migrate the Dejanews database to Google. I
>don't know how much they lost, but every thing I'd written was erased
>from the record and I'd been a participant all over the place for a long
>time.
>
>There was a sorta oops, we broke it permanently message when it
>happened. --I'll admit to wondering if they meant to break it.
>
>The information is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deja_News
No mention there at all of Google losing any data, just the statement that
"during this transition, many older messages ... became unavailable." In the
first place, the wording of this sentence implies temporary unavailability,
not permanent loss. Second, the "transition" referred to was (as the article
makes clear) a change in *Deja's* operations which occurred two years *before*
the sale to Google.
phorbin wrote:
> It was a failed attempt to migrate the Dejanews database to Google. I
> don't know how much they lost, but every thing I'd written was erased
> from the record and I'd been a participant all over the place for a long
> time.
>
> There was a sorta oops, we broke it permanently message when it
> happened. --I'll admit to wondering if they meant to break it.
>
> The information is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deja_News
Did you even read the above article? Generally, if you post a link to
support your case, the link supports your case? I know doing a search on
"the" back to 1981 you get messages posted back that far. What parts of
usenet is archived, or if any message have been lost, or removed, I
certainly can't say, and your wikipedia link doesn't say Google lost
anything.
If you can't find messages you know you posted, I guess either they were
lost, or, your search parameters didn't work, or, the search engine
isn't working.
I know while looking through some of this I found Google said they have
over a TRILLION web pages indexed. I know, thats not messages but that
is a hell of a lot of pages. For an old guy like me, I'm constantly
amazed at how fast all this stuff works. Storing this much stuff is
awesome, but searching through it for info is mind boggling to me.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com
phorbin wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>> phorbin wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>>> says...
>>>
>>>> A news readar and news server is not a substitute for the dejanews
>>>> archive that Google maintains, containing posts going back into the
>>>> late '80s.
>>>
>>> Google is not a substitute for the dejanews archive, which Google
>>> lost.
>>
>> When did this loss occur?
>>
>
> It was a failed attempt to migrate the Dejanews database to Google. I
> don't know how much they lost, but every thing I'd written was erased
> from the record and I'd been a participant all over the place for a
> long time.
>
> There was a sorta oops, we broke it permanently message when it
> happened. --I'll admit to wondering if they meant to break it.
>
> The information is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deja_News
It says that deja lost a lot of data in 1999 and that Google bought deja in
2001. Seems to me that you're blaming Google for somebody else's mistake.
I used to work for Google, and followed some of these issues closely, although
I didn't work for that part of Google.
AFAIK, Google did not lose any data. At one point they *did* change
their database in a way that broke all the old Deja News permalinks, which
was annoying.
It's definately true that a few articles have been lost, but whether it
was by Deja or by Google, I couldn't guess. The Wikipedia article implies
it was by Deja.
It's also true that Google will remove any article from the archive when
presented with a court order to do so. C.f.
http://www.chillingeffects.org/uncat/notice.cgi?NoticeID=2269
--
-Ed Falk, [email protected]
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
On 30 Jul 2009 03:35:52 GMT, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:54:15 -0500, Tom Veatch
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:46:50 -0500, Gordon Shumway
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Get yourself a news reader and use a news server instead
>>>>>of Google.
>>>>
>>>>I believe the typical news server doesn't archive the
>>>>content. If that's the case, the only posts that would be
>>>>available would be those within that server's retention
>>>>policy which varies from provider to provider.
>>>>
>>>>There may be more complete archives of specific groups,
>>>>but it's my understanding that Google Groups is probably
>>>>the most complete (least incomplete?) general archive
>>>>available.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Tom Veatch
>>>>Wichita, KS
>>>>USA
>>>>
>>>
>>> Tom,
>>>
>>> Currently there are over 30,000 posts on Newsguy that
>>> match the OP's criteria. The oldest is dated May of 2005.
>>> I have no idea how long Google retains posts for but I
>>> would think it wouldn't be that long.
>>>
>>> Gordon Shumway
>>>
>>
>> Scroll down to 2001 and look at the first company
>> aquisition. To the best of my knowledge, Google does not
>> remove newsgroup posts, ever.
>>
>> Larry
>>
>>
>I guess if I wasn't a dumbass I could have included the link.
>
>http://www.google.com/corporate/history.html
Larry,
See my reply to J.Clarke. I didn't sort Google by date to find the
oldest message because I couldn't find how to sort. How old is the
oldest message at google for this group? Is it older than Newsguy's
May of 2005?
Gordon Shumway
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:46:50 -0500, Gordon Shumway
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Get yourself a news reader and use a news server instead of Google.
I believe the typical news server doesn't archive the content. If
that's the case, the only posts that would be available would be those
within that server's retention policy which varies from provider to
provider.
There may be more complete archives of specific groups, but it's my
understanding that Google Groups is probably the most complete (least
incomplete?) general archive available.
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:20:07 -0400, phorbin <[email protected]>
wrote:
>It was a failed attempt to migrate the Dejanews database to Google. I
>don't know how much they lost, but every thing I'd written was erased
>from the record and I'd been a participant all over the place for a long
>time.
>
>There was a sorta oops, we broke it permanently message when it
>happened. --I'll admit to wondering if they meant to break it.
(Are there typos or words missing from that sentence. I confess to a
failure to decipher any meaning from it.)
>
>The information is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deja_News
According to the cited article, the "oops" occurred in 1999-2000 prior
to the DejaNews/eBay transaction in 2000. I offer no comment as to the
validity of the information on Wikipedia.
<Quote>
In 1999 the site (now known as Deja.com) sharply changed direction and
made its primary feature a shopping comparison service. During this
transition, which involved relocation of the servers, many older
messages in the Usenet archive became unavailable.
By late 2000 the company, in financial distress, sold the shopping
service to eBay, who incorporated the technology into their half.com
service.
By 2001 the search service was shut down. The archives were acquired
by Google[3] and reintroduced as Google Groups.
</Quote>
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA