Why is Google so F****** dense about SPAM?
in [FPGA]
|
Prev: Call for Papers: International Conference on Computational Biology ICCB 2010
Next: Programming the Actel Smartfusion Eval Kit in Linux
From: Jonathan Bromley on 18 Jun 2010 13:59 On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:04:02 -0700 (PDT), Gabor wrote: >Google is still the best portal to the UseNet for those of >us who are unable or unwilling to install newsreaders Maybe so, but it really doesn't work for me: the threading model is a mess, the editing is a mess, and the spam sucks. I use it when I have to, if for any reason I don't have access to my usual Usenet setup. >who just don't want the added hassle. What hassle? It took me ten minutes to set up and install my newsreader, five minutes to subscribe at eternal-september. And now I have a sane Usenet environment. >For example the recent threads >"Simple hack to get $<random number> to your home" which I simply didn't see at all. But I *do* see the overwhelming majority of meaningful posts that came via Google Groups. I'm happy to let other experts do the spam-filtering for me - my eyeballs can easily handle the occasional escapees. >As to other moderated forums, I've seen that a large portion >of traffic that once showed up on c.a.f has now moved to >Xilinx Forums. This could represent the amount that used to >be posted to c.a.f via the Xilinx forum site, but I doubt it. >There is something to be said for a well-moderated site that >allows attachments, etc. That's fair enough. On the other hand, there are enough side-channels available these days that the attachments problem is really no problem at all. It's certainly true that no-one seems to be setting up any new Usenet groups these days, at least not in our line of work. For example, all the new SystemVerilog verification methodologies (UVM, VMM, OVM) have their own forum sites that work pretty well. I don't mind using them, again on the condition that someone else does the sysadmin effort. The modern forum engines seem to work reasonably well provided there is only modest traffic; all their window-dressing tends to get in the way when there is a lot of material. >I don't think there's any free ride... No, for sure. But I'm on a ride that's cheap enough for me, and going in roughly the right direction too. -- Jonathan Bromley
From: martin_05 on 21 Jun 2010 22:37 On Jun 17, 4:29 am, rickman <gnu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Why is Google too dense to fix their SPAM problem? There are so many > ways they could address the problem and as far as I can tell, they > treat it as a PR concern and have tried to give us a control that does > nothing! You can flag posts as being spam very easily now. Each post > has a link at the bottom that lets you report spam. There are times > when I flag every post that come into the groups I read. I see > nothing happen with that SPAM. The existing SPAM posts are not > deleted. The same SPAM posts are not prevented. In other words, it > is a control that is not wired into anything. I've actually been thinking about starting a series of forums to deal with this very problem. The "comp" and other hierarchies on usenet are simply too polluted with SPAM these days. The only way to break the cycle is to break away from usenet and move to a privately managed system that can enforce some rules. The boards, of course, would have to have some advertising to support the costs of setup and running, but would otherwise be free to users. Spammers would just not last very long at all. C.A.F. regulars could certainly be setup as moderators to raise the quality of the board even further. A modern board like that could include attachments and other very useful modern features. If this if of interest please email me off list. I'll decide based on the level of interest. x(a)y.z where: x = martin_05 y = rocketmail z = com -Martin
From: Ed McGettigan on 22 Jun 2010 02:26 On Jun 21, 7:37 pm, martin_05 <martin...(a)rocketmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 17, 4:29 am, rickman <gnu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Why is Google too dense to fix their SPAM problem? There are so many > > ways they could address the problem and as far as I can tell, they > > treat it as a PR concern and have tried to give us a control that does > > nothing! You can flag posts as being spam very easily now. Each post > > has a link at the bottom that lets you report spam. There are times > > when I flag every post that come into the groups I read. I see > > nothing happen with that SPAM. The existing SPAM posts are not > > deleted. The same SPAM posts are not prevented. In other words, it > > is a control that is not wired into anything. > > I've actually been thinking about starting a series of forums to deal > with this very problem. The "comp" and other hierarchies on usenet > are simply too polluted with SPAM these days. The only way to break > the cycle is to break away from usenet and move to a privately managed > system that can enforce some rules. The boards, of course, would have > to have some advertising to support the costs of setup and running, > but would otherwise be free to users. Spammers would just not last > very long at all. C.A.F. regulars could certainly be setup as > moderators to raise the quality of the board even further. A modern > board like that could include attachments and other very useful modern > features. > > If this if of interest please email me off list. I'll decide based on > the level of interest. > > x...(a)y.z > where: > > x = martin_05 > y = rocketmail > z = com > > -Martin These forums for the most part already exist: http://forums.xilinx.com http://www.alteraforums.com http://www.latticesemi.com/support/forums.cfm?source=topnav Ed McGettigan -- Xilinx Inc.
From: Sandro on 22 Jun 2010 10:41 On Jun 22, 8:26 am, Ed McGettigan <ed.mcgetti...(a)xilinx.com> wrote: > ... > These forums for the most part already exist: > > http://forums.xilinx.com > http://www.alteraforums.com > http://www.latticesemi.com/support/forums.cfm?source=topnav > > Ed McGettigan > ... All, I definetly prefer some spam to the (possible) censorship by the brands... Obviously it's a personal opinion and I do know that a lot of spam could be a kind of censorship Sandro
From: rich12345 on 22 Jun 2010 10:45
On Jun 21, 7:37 pm, martin_05 <martin...(a)rocketmail.com> wrote: > enforce some rules. The boards, of course, would have > to have some advertising to support the costs of setup and running, > but would otherwise be free to users. Spammers would just not last > very long at all. C.A.F. regulars could certainly be setup as > moderators to raise the quality of the board even further. A modern > board like that could include attachments and other very useful modern > features. you can create a group within "google groups" and moderate it. It is "sponsored" by google-ads, which is nice. No banners, no popups, and usually the ads are relevant to the content of the page being currently viewed. |