Talk:Usenet/Archive 1

Jargon

Still need more explanations for techno-speaking text. --Taku 21:10 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

Dejanews Archiving

Internet archiving of Usenet posts began at DejaNews with a very large, searchable database.

Is it really true that DejaNews was the first to archive usenet posts? This doesn't sound right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusadeonilliteracy (talk • contribs) 20:34, August 9, 2003 (UTC)

It's not, many other sites did it before, but dejanews was the first to do it for all newsgroups for a long time. --Marco d'Itri 22:21, September 8, 2003 (UTC)

Why is Google's usenet archive so goddamn incomplete?

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.tv.simpsons/browse_thread/thread/32b1e88081bc353f/ea6ef99c36dd2b11?q=google+groups&rnum=1#ea6ef99c36dd2b11 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.tv.simpsons/browse_thread/thread/5e01a33a79053231/a9bf14751deb56cf?q=google+groups&rnum=3#a9bf14751deb56cf 71.81.49.37 06:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Further spam

User 64.142.20.150 has made additions to usenet-related articles that seem to me to be commercial advertising, should these links be removed? --Crusadeonilliteracy 12:44, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Agreed, these links are not much relevant and should be removed. --Marco d'Itri 22:21, September 8, 2003 (UTC)

Usenet personalities

The list of "usenet people" consisted solely of a few "personalities" of dubious distinction, and none of the people who actually made/make it work. I've added three. There are plenty more. --Daran 05:48, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

MyRedDice, are Kibo and Plutonium any more worthy of pages to themselves? If these individuals are Miowers, then they should be moved to that page. If not, then perhaps Usenet Personalities should be created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daran (talk • contribs) 17:27, September 27, 2003 (UTC)

I believe that both Kibo and Plutonium are "worthy" of articles (no, they're not Meowers), but these things are inevitably a matter of judgement.

Perhaps we should distinguish between famous/notable usenet posters, and usenet inventors/creators/administrators? --Martin 17:37, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What about the guy in all the hacking and cracking newsgroups, TheProphet? 71.81.49.37 06:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added Laurence Godfrey, of Godfrey vs Demon Internet fame... perhaps a 'famous court cases' section is required too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.33.119 (talk) 00:02, April 7, 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a Usenet Personalities page needs to be created. The bet source to start such a page would be David DeLaney's Net.Legends FAQ.http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=net.legends+faq&btnG=Google+Searchlsb 04:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

How is it that you saw fit to include "Archimedes Plutonium", but no mention of "Uncle Al"? The legend was, Archimedes Plutonium was a busboy at a college dining hall. Most of his posts were rubbish: "Soft Land the Moon at the North Pole, so our day will cease slowing down.", or other such blithering nonsense. Uncle Al was the stuff of legend; a chemistry PhD who was the victim of a terrible laboratory explosion. Uncle Al's posts were sometimes kurt and angry, but occasionally more informative than any expert (forensic or otherwise) I have ever met. 70.106.60.44 00:40, December 29, 2006 (UTC)

What is Usenet?

Hello World:-) I have two questions:

1. Not to belonging to Big8 categories are suitable topics on this article?
2. If so, has Wikipedia (at least wiki-en) any related articles? (I coundn't find such kinds.)

I'm not so active in Big8 but in fj.* and japan.*. There has been a steady discussion in both categories Are we a part of USENET or not?. Majority claims no, because these category is not under the administratve standard (such as CFD-RFV procedure). On the other hand in ja.wiki Netnews article is linked to Usenet.

Waiting your comments, Cheers. --KIZU 07:51, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

FLT

From the article:

"To new readers of this newsgroup: welcome to sci.math, where mathematics is sometimes different than it is elsewhere." — John Baez commenting on a flurry of responses from Ludwig Plutonium to Andrew Wiles' unique post on the status of FLT.

Huh? Does "FLT" refer to "Fermat's last theorem"? --Brianjd 11:07, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

Yes. Ludwig Plutionium has his own theories on Fermat's last, in particular he believes the theorem to be false. --Elijah 22:48, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

Binaries?

Why no mention of usenet as a method of file sharing and piracy, as is so widespread? --68.148.190.38 23:49, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Possibly the editors of this article so far are less familiar with it than you are. Please feel free to add a section about it. I certainly don't know much about it ... Usenet is a text medium at my workplace; we don't take on binary newsgroups. --FOo 23:59, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I suggest to add a direct link to http://www.usenet-replayer.com/archive.html because there can the reader get an impression what is present on binary usenet! Q9a 01:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, www.newzbin.com indexes binary usenet almost 100% completely with the help of volunteers ("editors" who get paid with free access, normally the price is very low). Newzbin has a free service which lets you search for specific items and tells you where they are (what group), and for the small charge of becoming a member you get a "NBZ" file which adds the post details to newsleecher (or another NBZ compatible program) which will then download them without any fuss (if you have newsgroup access, of course) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.179.46 (talk) 12:07, November 7, 2006 (UTC)

Sociological implications

Under "Sociological implications" --

"1. In its origin, Usenet was the alternative to ARPANET (the precursor of today's Internet), created by those who could not join ARPANET. (It is not true today.)"

This is rather confusing. Saying "It is not true today" makes it sound like this view of Usenet's origin was a misconception, rather than that it is no longer an alternative to ARPANET. I'm not sure which point is trying to be made here. -- JH 2/19/05 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.6.154 (talk) 19:44, February 19, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the whole article still needs cleanup. Usenet was originally proposed as a general service network (news, mail, file transfers) but it didn't really turn out that way. With the ARPANET having long since evolved into the public access Internet, and virtually all Usenet traffic traversing the Internet, the distinction as a separate network is mostly sentimental. --iMeowbot~Mw 12:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• updated!17:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This section has just been removed by IMeowbot. See comments here. ~xenc. 00:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

RFC 1036

"The current format and transmission of Usenet articles is very similar to that of Internet email messages."

There should be a link to http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1036.html (if it's not obsolete), or to another site which displays this document (I just saw that the Wiki software automatically linked the RFC reference to the document's page on the IETF site). --Apokrif 10:11, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, MediaWiki has some cool little features like that. It works for ISBNs too.

The curent situation is that while RFC 1036 is out of date, attempts to update it have resulted in a ongoing comedy of errors stretching back a dozen years. Fortunately, few enough people are actively working on news software that informal communication keeps things pretty much compatible. --iMb~Mw 12:10, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[1] --Apokrif 13:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, that's very old, and still being worked on today! See http://www.landfield.com/usefor/ for the slow-motion train wreck in progress. --iMb~Mw 13:56, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's right, the Landfield site only covers the first several years of non-progress. The continued haggling lives at http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/index.html . (and no, your eyes do not deceive you, USEFOR has been "active" since 1997 (Okay, it's NNTPEXT, which has made some slow progress, that started in '96) without producing any RFCs.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IMeowbot (talk • contribs) 13:59, March 17, 2005 (UTC)

Snipped some spam

I've chopped out a number of for-fee Usenet providers that have accumulated in the external links section, in part because some were added by those companies (making them blatant advertising) and in part because they violate NPOV (we're never likely to have every last one of them listed, and Wikipedia has no place playing favorites in a list like this). --iMb~Meow 04:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks, that kind of advertising has no place in the WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaulPerdomo (talk • contribs) 17:53, November 2, 2005 (UTC)

Usenet v. USENET

Both "Usenet" and "USENET" are used through the article. Is one "more correct" than the other? I think we should identify both in the article's opening and then use one throughout the article. -- J44xm 18:55, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Having been around Usenet since 1981 (even quoted on Dejagoogle's page for early articles), I believe it was introduced as "Usenet". I don't recall anyone all-capping it until ARPANET started being the alternative connection. --Randal L. Schwartz 22:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

References

The link to "USENET - A General Access UNIX® Network" mentioned in the References doesn't work. Is there any mirror? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.253.251.64 (talk) 14:12, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the reference to point at the A News tarball. That's not as easy to work with, but at least it's a live link. --iMeowbot~Meow 16:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

History resource

While dredging for info on another matter (see Talk:History of the Internet), I ran across what seems like it might be a useful source of info for this page, so I'm noting it here for y'all; it's a talk (with copious slides with much data) entitled What is USENET? What is NNNT? or Where did all my disk space go?, by Gene Spafford. It is reprinted in the Proceedings of the 11th IETF, January '89, and is available (as part of a huge PDF file of the entire Proceedings) in the IETF Proceedings archive (two clicks from the IETF home page). Noel (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

What about the link between USENET and the notes/notesfiles written in 1980-1981 by Ray Essick and Rob Kolstad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.144.180.5 (talk) 20:15, November 2, 2005 (UTC)

CAPS?

This article includes "Usenet," "USENET," and "usenet." Maybe a brief explanation on the evolution of caps in this term? (cf. Perl and Internet). —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Hubbard (talk • contribs) 23:21, October 16, 2005 (UTC)

Usenet's lost importance

Today, Usenet has lost importance compared to mailing lists and weblogs.

How was this objectively assessed? 71.131.196.204 05:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure it has been. Maybe this should be POV zaped. --Barberio 15:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I have read, that european isp measure round about 20% of the total user traffic goes to usenet (port 119) [2] Q9a 21:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Usenet as a file sharing network does still see loads of activity. It's Usenet as a discussion medium that has been fading away. People who used Usenet back when it was the überBBS will tend to see it as dying or dead today, while file traders will have a rather different perspective. --iMb~Meow 00:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ref desk question

At the ref desk someone said they read the article, but still had some questions. Maybe a hint for some improvement? (don't know, haven't read the article yet). DirkvdM 10:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Google Groups

Someone reverted my change, I don't want to get into a revert war. The idea that we should duplicate information everywhere because some people are lazy is kind of silly, the Usenet article is over the suggested article size, it's time to start merging stuff to subarticles. Google Groups is a great choice, because many concepts related to it (interface, features, etc.) really have nothing to do with Usenet. Does anyone else actually think that we should have a long unreferenced summary of Google Groups on the main Usenet article? See the version I trimmed down to 3 paragraphs, compared to the current stuff. --W.marsh 17:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I support to split out Google Groups. It's a or rather the Usenet archive, but otherwise more like a WebMail interface to mailing lists, same idea as YahooGroups or GMaNe. GMaNe (Gateway MAil NEws) is at least based on a proper NNTP server, so it's definitely NetNews, but not UseNet. The fine points of UseNet is not a part of the Internet (e.g. UUCP is outside) and not all NetNews are UseNet news are hopefully explained in the article. Omniplex  02:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the Google Groups section has a NPOV, either. --Mysterius 16:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess I could prove it word for word, especially controversial (= the German Usenet has an FAQ about not using GG, and why killfiling all GG articles is an option), feeble (= no effect for catch-all vanity domains), X-No (= explained in the GG FAQ), and other technical facts like the removed output=gplain.

Please be more specific, or simply edit what you think needs editing. It should certainly mention that GG are a main source of net abuse in Usenet, that they don't honour cancel  messages providing their own purge interface, that their threading is something between fragile and dubious, that they don't support Reply-To (= mail replies go to the From ), and that they allow to overwrite articles by re-using old Message-IDs. At least that's the last state I know. -- Omniplex 01:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

For another point of this (?) discussion see also my talk page. -- Omniplex 01:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the Google Groups article and am seeking feedback on it. Please go to Wikipedia:Article Feedback Desk and post your feedback. Thanks! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on Google Groups article

Hello. I wrote an article about a related topic, Google Groups. As a new Wikipedia writer, I would appreciate any feedback on my article. Please help me by posting your feedback at the Wikipedia:Article Feedback Desk. If you wrote an article and are seeking feedback on it, please post your article at the Article Feedback Desk as well. If you could suggest better ways for me to seek feedback on my article, do leave a note at my talk page. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ray Gordon Parker

Why he is not mentioned there?His persistent trolling for years is something that needs to be documented —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.204.147.108 (talk • contribs) 14:24, April 29, 2006 (UTC)

He might be of some interest in one of the articles about Google or copyright, but even then it's not clear because the outcome of his pro se litigation was no change. C'mon, he's no Archie Pu :) --iMeowbot~Meow 16:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

newsgroup ID

What item can be used to identify a usenet account when the account username is changed? -- 209.216.92.232 00:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It depends very much on the posting server. Some servers will include a unique hash or IP address in one of the Path:, X-trace:, or NNTP-Posting-Host: headers. Others will not transmit that information, keeping track only in their internal logs. Still other servers don't track individual users at all. --iMb~Meow 01:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Binaries again (RFC for usenet-replayer link)

Q9a has spammed Usenet-Replayer before, and now the fresh user UfoFreak seems to want Usenet to link to it too. Usenet-Replayer seems to me to be a non-usable service, which I found very confusing. It ended up crashing my web browser. The problem with linking to sites providing free Usenet binaries is that such a site does not exist. If you can find one, you can be sure it is a thinly veiled attempt at selling you the actual functioning service. Free Usenet binaries would be way too expensive to provide, especially considering the legal uncertainties involved. My claim is thus that any link to "free Usenet binaries" amounts to linkspam, and I have reverted the link to Usenet-Replayer. Any thoughts in other directions? Haakon 17:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Everything what is not the opinion of user Haakon is /* Hydrophilic and hydrophobic amino acids */ spam, this is rearly clear if you look to his discussion page. I using usenet replayer a long time, and it work well. It have a lot of ads on the side - but this is ok, because i asume too that it is more expensive than other free services. Espacialy the archive is very usefull. With the expeption of porn in some countrys, there is nothing what get legal by making a pay service. Well porn is filtered out, but this no lost for me and a lot of other user. If you are searching porn, it rigth that usenet-replayer dont work. But this is noted on the main pange - ans there are a lot of people in the internet who dont want to see porn, for example as result from regioese convictions. Hakoon writes about a brouwser crash. Did you have found a nonconform statment in the source code of the side or did you have a similar statment of the Manufacturer of your brouwser? Are you shure that your computer is working well? Did you have enoth resources on your computer? What are you using? I use LINUX/Opera and it work fast and stable. So usenet replayer is a working free service for non porn content. --217.20.118.138 09:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Haakon did you are using mozilla/fierfox brouwser? This peace of software have a lot of trouble with frames and iframes combinations. I get regular crashes if i resize the window during loading some complex sides with frames and iframes. There are a lot of related bugs. I never interrupt Firefox. It is better to wait, until a side is completely loaded. --UfoFreak 11:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I am using Mozilla Firefox on Linux. I have never noticed any problems relating to frames or iframes with this browser. I did not search for porn. I did not analyse the site for non-conforming code (that's a little much to ask of encyclopedia readers, I think). My computer works fine. Yes, I often fight linkspam, and given some people's persistance to link to the site and the huge amount of ads on it, I do consider this linkspam. I will however say that on second attempt I was able to download some binaries, so it is not a completely useless service. This alone does not entitle it to a link on Wikipedia, however. I welcome second opinions. Haakon 11:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well Haakon, if you removing a link with the reason "this service don't work", you should be safe, that is truly a problem of this service. A exeption may be the most common combination of MS windows and internet explorer, who are used by 80% of the user. In addition you call user such as Q9a, Linton and others spammer. That is not an invitation to along-discuss here.

What is the sense of external links? It there to give more detailed informations about the describet item. If the describet item is an network subsystem that requires additional software installations, a free of charge and free of subscribtion web gateway to the content of this subsystem is an exhaustive deepening infomation over the content stored in this system. It is very usefully, because a lot of user users avoid experimental software installtions for many reasons. google groups in the content of usenet text content is out of question in the mind of most users. usenet-replayer is a usefull, well known extension to the text only service of google. Look here for an external example. Text groups are linked to Google, the binary group alt.binaries.pictures.aviation is linked to replayer. I think, we shoud write the expection to an external links of this kind within the subtitels, like my suggestions free access to text/binary content to avoid spam in the future. --UfoFreak 18:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Google Groups is really not "out of the question" for most users. I think we are not making much progress here, so I have requested other opinions. Hopefully we can reach a consensus. Haakon 18:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that the link to Usenet-Replayer isn't one I would be inclined to include in an article. My reasoning behind this is based on the heavy volume of advertising found on the site, and this is mentioned as a link to normally avoid. I don't feel the site does provide information which someone would be looking for after looking at the main article, instead it provides a service loaded with advertisements. Perhaps this is just my feelings, hopefully other editors will express their views. --Scot^t 19:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if i read the last comment from Haakon, it souds he also dislike the link to Google, because it is also commecial, advertising sponsored service. I have compared the amount of traffic with the amount of advertisings. On google you get typically 50 kBytes for 6 Sponsored Links. A typical pictures of medium quality has a size of 250kByte. The 43 ad's i count on usenet-replayer to get some results are in line to google's relation, specially if you recognize that usenet-replayer store also bigger objects likes videos, fonts, and much more bigger stuff. From this point of view, i can understand Hakoon's last statment against the link to google's archive. Scot^t's statment about the amount of advertising is not rearly justified.

On the other hand, within Hakoon's written opinion the link to microsoft's netscan is not in question. Yes, of course, there are no advertising links. This is not needed, because "microsoft" himself is the promoted label. This service gives detailed profiling of usenet authors and his interests. You get a big amount of statistics, but no content. If i want to get an article, this service suggest always to use google's archive. This is an true example of a "non working" service. On the other hand, it is a usefull link, to give a novice user an idea of the amount of observation in usenet. We have to decide, whats more importand. Puristic liberty of commercial links or however use the reader --UfoFreak 00:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I will not be your straw man. Stop assigning me opinions I have never expressed. A link to Google Groups belongs because they are the "canonical" public Usenet resource. Usenet-Replayer is not -- in fact, if you search Google for "usenet binaries" without the quotes, you have to go to page number 28 before you find the first link there. The ads on Google Groups are inconspicuous and low-bandwidth. On Usenet-Replayer, they dominate. The Netscan service is somewhat informative; I have never said anything to the effect that because it is on Microsoft's network it is spam. That is ridiculous. Haakon 09:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you have never said something about Microsofts Netscan here, exept the block before. And this is the Problem. You reject ads on one installation, on the other you say its acceptabel. The Bandwith ratio of content to ads is approximative the same. Future more you accept Advertisings from a Major Label like Micosoft, who have the finance power to implement a data protection critical service like netscan without more advertisings then the advertising they make for himself. You accept, that this service announces the articles, but still return the following if you want to load the articles: The message body for this article is not available. Message-ID: e3ael8$v10$1@emma.aioe.org Search for this message at Google Groups. This is exact the behavior you accuse to usenet-replayer as a result of a bug in your computer system.

You are rigth about the Google ranking of usenet-replayer. But why is this the case. Go to yahoo you find usenet replayer on rank 12 of 25000000 Sides in index in relation to the keyword usenet. Until last year, Usenet-replayer was also on the Top 10 of the Keyword Usenet on Googles index. This was bringing me to Usenet as a good source of information for my obsessions. Did you ever hear something about Google bowling? This is the opposite of Google Bombing and means to drop a unwantented page in Googles index. If you are seeking not porn and legal stuff, google groups and usenet-replayer are complet solution, who costs no money. Or, if you think deeper about the facts, commercial Usenet providers are selling porn and pirated movies. Can you imagine, that this guys don't like a free download source of the legal part of usenet?

Did you ever hear about the online trading tax privileges within the usa? Sellings of youth-endangering things is excludet from that! And Google, Google hase no interest to have free services in the top of index, because the others are odering ads on google. The golden time where google was not evil is completly over! Remember the situation in China! By unjustified faith in the reliability of results of Google the culture sovereignty of large companies such as Microsoft and Google to strengthen, that is really irresponsible! --81.169.187.215 12:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the third IP you are posting from; please log in so people can see that you're just one person. The bandwidth ratio of content to ads is nothing even similar between Google Groups and Usenet-Replayer. Google Groups is completely ad-free except for an inconspicuous little block of text (not graphics) on the message display. On the Usenet-Replayer frontpage I was able to count 20 (twenty) blocks of advertisement, most graphics and some text, in addition to links to partners and to Usenet-Replayer's own ad sales service [3]. Again, see links to normally avoid. But even if it was completely ad-free, I would be inclined against it. It's just not a notable site, as demonstrated by the Google ranking. Suggesting a complex conspiracy on Google's part is not helpful here. Regarding my suggested double standard because there are ads on Netscan [4], I resent that. There are no ads on Netscan. Haakon 15:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith and disregard the history of possible link spamming for usenet-replayer for now (though it may be relevant), as well as discussion about amino acids (please stay on-topic here). Much of the reasoning for wanting this link sounds to me like "it's a service I like", "it's acceptibly worse than google", and a bit of a conspiracy theory about how various un-named agents are working to lower its search rankings. Regarding the site itself, as we saw in the AfD, and as the above comments confirm do not refute, the site is laden with ads and is apparently not notable outside of a small circle of users and primarily for specialized uses. On these grounds, I oppose. DMacks 14:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The Right Thing is to also remove the external link to Google Groups. The reason is that we already have an internal link to a separate Google Groups article, and internal links, when available, are what we should use.

Netscan also really shouldn't be in the Usenet article because it's not discussed in the article. Actually, I don't see even a general discussion of statistics in the current version of the article.

I'm going to remove both of those, and not re-add Usenet Replayer. Instead, I'm going to put a link to the appropriate Open Directory page, which already lists all of those sites, and is in fact the course recommended in WP:EL. --iMeowbot~Meow 15:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

...and now I see that dmoz was already in there, meaning that those external links should not have been there anyway! Okay, that makes life simpler :) --iMeowbot~Meow 15:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"Sociological implications" section -- kill it dead?

Is there any reason to keep this? It really does appear to be no more than a few paragraphs of wild speculation, and unreferenced wild speculation at that. It looks like a leftover from Wikipedia's early days when standards were much looser.--iMeowbot~Meow 15:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No one called dibs so I took it out. here is the diff in case anyone wants to try to use it as part of a referenced replacement in the future. --iMeowbot~Meow 00:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Introduction vs. "Introduction"

The Introduction paragraph and the first paragraph of the section "Introduction" are rather redundant. Anyone else agree? GofG _|^|_| Contribs 04:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Web Interfaces section very POV

I've tagged this section, which I feel is far too critical of the interface discussed and does not give a balanced viewpoint. Radagast 17:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This part at least needs a citation:

"Google can't muster the will and resources to effectively keep a lid on abusers."

This section seems to me like original research/opinion:

"Google Groups provides an automated complaint system which appears to never result in any action."

Is there a review or article on Google Groups that would confirm GG's users feel this way? Tanyia 23:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

NZBs

Can a description of NZBs be included somewhere in the article (binaries section?). NZBs have greatly increased the ease of obtaining binary files over usenet and has brought usenet to many new people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Triedandtested (talk • contribs) 03:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC).