13 Dec
2005
13 Dec
'05
11:33 p.m.
a.carlini at ntlworld.com wrote:
Jules Richardson wrote:
Sure, and hats off to them for that (although I seem to recall that Dejanews
did all the leg-work). But it didn't seem too much to ask for a web interface
onto that archive that actually presented all the information that it
captured. Which indeed is what the archive was like until the 'improved' it in
the last couple of years :(
What *really* bugs me is that Google may well
have the only copy of
such a historical archive of data, so it's not like you can even take
your business elsewhere to someone who understands the historical
importance of such an archive. If there was a choice, I'd send a
polite email to Google saying why I thought they were muppets, and
just go and use someone who gave you actual access to a Usenet
archive rather than an abbreviated version of one.
Google at least put time and effort (and probably money) into
preserving the stuff so that at least you know exactly why you
want to get in touch with So-and-So. As far as I know, they have no monopoly on Usenet
news.
Anyone else can go back and gather up data from as many
tape archives as they can persuade people to part with.
I did wonder about that. Anyone know if Google/Deja bought/took any such
tapes, or did they merely copy them and give the data back to the owners? I
don't think I've ever heard one way or the other.
Of course we know better than most that you sometimes only get one shot at
reading old tapes, so it's a shame the data didn't go into a public domain
archive rather than a commercial one, even if the botched interface onto it is
free.
They must have been deluged with complaints from
people
who were having their email address harvested by bots!
That's the problem. It's a Usenet archive, and a fundamental part of Usenet is
having an email address in the headers; a basic principle of the format is
that you can in theory contact authors via email if desired. Of course you can
choose not to do this by leaving a totally false address, or you can munge
your address somehow to fool such bots but still allow people to reach you.
Google's masking of the address seems to be either one of two things:
1) Dumbing down of the medium in order to provide for idiots with no common sense.
2) Typical corporate mentality; force users to use Google's interface rather
than their own email client in order to contact people.
It just seems like a shame to me. I used to admire Google for putting together
such an archive and making it searchable. No longer, since the new look
interface was put in place which masks basic Usenet functionality :(
cheers
Jules