In alt.config, a user has recently requested the discussion of a
potential newsgroup 'alt.antigoogle'. While the namespace for this may
be questionable, the idea has made me sit up and realize that there is no
official newsgroup to discuss Google. The closest thing out there is
alt.internet.search-engines, but that only really discusses one of its
many business focuses. It also doesn't seem like the best place to
discuss some of the wider issues, starting with the growing privacy
concerns that the world seems to be feeling lately...

Looking through the ISC active file, there are only two newsgroups
that include the name Google, and neither of them are English-language. I
find that interesting as well.

I wonder if there would be interest in creating a proper newsgroup
to discuss Google specifically. I'm not really sure what the proper
namespace would be yet; I personally offer either soc.web.google or
soc.web.search-engines.google, but I'm sure that somebody will have some
better suggestions. And more than that, while I'm sure that there would
be plenty of users for the group, I'm not sure how to demonstrate that; a
proponent would have to beat the brush a bit to pull out a starting user
base, if the group were to get any use.

Thoughts?

- Tim Skirvin (skirv@big-8.org)
--
http://www.big-8.org/ Big-8 Management Board
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:08:52 CST, tskirvin@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) wrote in <tskirvin.20070613175428$71c0@cairo.ks.uiuc.edu> :

> ... I'm not really sure what the proper
>namespace would be yet; I personally offer either soc.web.google or
>soc.web.search-engines.google, but I'm sure that somebody will have some
>better suggestions.

Of the two, I prefer the first.

Google is far more than a search engine.

It is a huge data-driven enterprise.

I just finished uploading 30+ images to my
first Picasa album. I have a gmail account
and a google web site (using their Page
Creator).

I use the Google toolbar and do searches
many times each day with it.

So, the bottom line is that I think it is a
fair topic for a newsgroup and I also am trying
to indicate that I'm not an unbiased bystander.
I'm very grateful for the stuff that Google
provides.

Marty
--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB) -- http://www.big-8.org
Unless otherwise indicated, I speak for myself, not for the Board.

tskirvin@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) writes:

> I wonder if there would be interest in creating a proper newsgroup
> to discuss Google specifically.

I don't think so. Unless there's a specific user-base really trying to
organize itself, it's better to get a proper namespace
in the Big-8 going.

As it happens, I don't think there's particular interest in the
broader topic, either -- it's so broad that there's no point in
talking about it. Something like search engines, or portals, or
whatever ... that's a concrete topic.

--
I'm awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard.

"Brian Palmer" wrote ...
> As it happens, I don't think there's particular interest in the
> broader topic, either -- it's so broad that there's no point in
> talking about it. Something like search engines, or portals, or
> whatever ... that's a concrete topic.

I agree - this group, for example, discusses Google in a search context; I
see little use for an *eclusively* Google group.

Except alt.googlebashers, of course, which may keep a few failed spammers
off the streets.

alt groups are much easier to set up, and that's another reason not to
invest the time and effort into a 'serious' group.
--

Andrew
Editor
http://www.seo2seo.com/
First things first - but not necessarily in that order.

Jim Riley wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:08:52 CST, tskirvin@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
> wrote:
>
> > I wonder if there would be interest in creating a proper newsgroup
> >to discuss Google specifically. I'm not really sure what the proper
> >namespace would be yet; I personally offer either soc.web.google or
> >soc.web.search-engines.google, but I'm sure that somebody will have some
> >better suggestions. And more than that, while I'm sure that there would
> >be plenty of users for the group, I'm not sure how to demonstrate that; a
> >proponent would have to beat the brush a bit to pull out a starting user
> >base, if the group were to get any use.
>
> misc.news.internet.announce was created for announcement about the
> internet directed at the conventional media, and
> misc.news.internet.discuss was created to discuss the announcements.
> Conventional journalists could ask questions and have them answered in
> the discussion group. Later a group was proposed that would include
> news articles from the conventional press about the internet. All the
> groups would have been moderated, in part so posters could be kept
> straight out what they were intended for.
>
> soc.* is traditionally for socializing and social issues. I don't
> think Google really fits any more than a newsgroup for cell phone
> usage would (ie social phenomena and vehicle for social interaction).
>
> comp.infosystems.search exists, but I think it was intended for
> discussing systems for searching internal data as much as internet
> search engines.
>
> I'd probably put a group somewhere in misc.*.
> --
> Jim Riley

1) Like others, i think that that subject matter is unique and topical.

2) We already have the alt.internet.* hierarchy (i am preading this
message in alt.internet.search-engines).

3) Issues of google's NON search presence in the media and on the
internet (items about stock offerings, toolbars, gmail accounts, privacy
issues, adsense account policies, vorporate acquisitions of smaller
companies, hirings and firings of executives, beta releases of new
services, and so forth) have for years been routinely discussed in
alt.internet.search-engines, where they are either marginally on topic
or entirely off topic.

Therefore: I think alt.internet.google is the best namespace, becasue it
places the proposed new newsgroup in the same hierarchy as the newsgroup
that is currently handling the traffic.

Finally, my isp's news server does not recognize news.groups.proposals
as a valid newsgroup, so i have had to trim my newsgroup line down.
Would someone who reads this be so kind as to see that it gets
crossposted back into news.groups.proposals? Thank uou!!!

Cordially,

cat yronwode

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:08:52 CST, tskirvin@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
wrote:

> I wonder if there would be interest in creating a proper newsgroup
>to discuss Google specifically. I'm not really sure what the proper
>namespace would be yet; I personally offer either soc.web.google or
>soc.web.search-engines.google, but I'm sure that somebody will have some
>better suggestions. And more than that, while I'm sure that there would
>be plenty of users for the group, I'm not sure how to demonstrate that; a
>proponent would have to beat the brush a bit to pull out a starting user
>base, if the group were to get any use.

misc.news.internet.announce was created for announcement about the
internet directed at the conventional media, and
misc.news.internet.discuss was created to discuss the announcements.
Conventional journalists could ask questions and have them answered in
the discussion group. Later a group was proposed that would include
news articles from the conventional press about the internet. All the
groups would have been moderated, in part so posters could be kept
straight out what they were intended for.

soc.* is traditionally for socializing and social issues. I don't
think Google really fits any more than a newsgroup for cell phone
usage would (ie social phenomena and vehicle for social interaction).

comp.infosystems.search exists, but I think it was intended for
discussing systems for searching internal data as much as internet
search engines.

I'd probably put a group somewhere in misc.*.
--
Jim Riley

Brian Palmer <bpalmer@rescomp.Stanford.EDU> writes:

>> I wonder if there would be interest in creating a proper newsgroup
>> to discuss Google specifically.

> I don't think so. Unless there's a specific user-base really trying to
> organize itself, it's better to get a proper namespace
> in the Big-8 going.

What would you suggest for a name?

> As it happens, I don't think there's particular interest in the broader
> topic, either -- it's so broad that there's no point in talking about
> it.

But it *is* being talked about, near-constantly. The privacy
issues regarding Google's ventures tend to make the front page of most
news sites every week or so. New services make the front pages of
newspapers. They're as influential as Microsoft, at least, and as such
they *are* discussed.

Now, does this translate to a userbase? I don't know. But there
are things to discuss, and I think that it would, at the very least, be a
good experiment.

And besides, I see something silly about a world where
we can have dozens of *.ms-windows.* and other OS newsgroups, but nothing
discussing web applications in any form. There's something backwards
about that.

- Tim Skirvin (skirv@big-8.org)
--
http://www.big-8.org/ Big-8 Management Board
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>

> I wonder if there would be interest in creating a proper newsgroup
> to discuss Google specifically.
>
> Thoughts?


If I wanted to discuss Google in favour or against I would go to:

google.public.support.general

It is quite active and I don't see why people should quit it to go to a
new group to do the same thing. Besides I find the google.* hyerarchy
the best to discuss them.

--

Customized News: http://news.spotback.com

macarro wrote:
>
> > I wonder if there would be interest in creating a proper newsgroup
> > to discuss Google specifically.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> If I wanted to discuss Google in favour or against I would go to:
>
> google.public.support.general
>
> It is quite active and I don't see why people should quit it to go to a
> new group to do the same thing. Besides I find the google.* hyerarchy
> the best to discuss them.

My isp doesn't carry it.

Can one post there without having a google account?

What makes usenet great is that it is not controlled by anyone.

cat yronwode

catherine yronwode wrote:
> macarro wrote:
>>> I wonder if there would be interest in creating a proper newsgroup
>>> to discuss Google specifically.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?

> My isp doesn't carry it.
>
> Can one post there without having a google account?

Yes you can it works like any other group,it is not moderated.
>
> What makes usenet great is that it is not controlled by anyone.

I agree, and it is also great that it has no censorship, you should
probably ask your ISP to consider carrying the group.

>
> cat yronwode


--

Customized News: http://news.spotback.com

> I wonder if there would be interest in creating a proper newsgroup to
> discuss Google specifically. I'm not really sure what the proper
> namespace would be yet

misc.business.google (or misc.business.companies.google)?

As for the suggestion of google.public.support.general, that seems to
be more of a "how-to" group than a broader discussion of: (1) is
Google's stock overpriced?, (2) are they evil for their operations in
China?, (3) did you hear that google is going to introduce a new
revolutionary kitchen appliance? (4) why doesn't blogger work with
Safari (or whatever, this is a made up example), (5) is google toolbar
spying on me? Posts about more or less any aspect of google, that is.

As for whether this would attract traffic, seems like it could. Noise
level would be moderate to high, but not necessarily hopeless (I'm
thinking of debates of the "google does no evil" and "oh yes they do"
variety).

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:57:26 CST, Jim Kingdon <kingdon@panix.com>
wrote:

>> I wonder if there would be interest in creating a proper newsgroup to
>> discuss Google specifically. I'm not really sure what the proper
>> namespace would be yet
>
>misc.business.google (or misc.business.companies.google)?

Any group with "business" in the name is going to attract people
wanting to do business using this internet-thingy, and would have to
be moderated. See misc.business.records-mgmt. In the case of
misc.business.google, it would probably get a mix of people who don't
see "google" in the name and those who advertise with Google.

How about misc.internet.google?
--
Jim Riley

tskirvin@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) writes:

> What would you suggest for a name?

I have no good ideas; a sign, I believe, that the topic is ill-suited
to Usenet.

> But it *is* being talked about, near-constantly. The privacy
> issues regarding Google's ventures tend to make the front page of most
> news sites every week or so. New services make the front pages of
> newspapers. They're as influential as Microsoft, at least, and as such
> they *are* discussed.

That doesn't a forum make. A newsgroup should have a chance at
building a community ; a lot of very shallow, transitory interest is
not suited for a fixed newsgroup.

> And besides, I see something silly about a world where
> we can have dozens of *.ms-windows.* and other OS newsgroups, but nothing
> discussing web applications in any form. There's something backwards
> about that.

Ah, so you want a web applications newsgroup. That sounds a lot more
promising than this nebulous "talk about google" group.

--
I'm awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard.

[Jim Riley]:
>
> Any group with "business" in the name is going to attract people
> wanting to do business using this internet-thingy, and would have
> to be moderated. See misc.business.records-mgmt. In the case of
> misc.business.google, it would probably get a mix of people who
> don't see "google" in the name and those who advertise with
> Google.

agreed.

> How about misc.internet.google?

my favourite would be comp.services.google. relatively technical
questions and discussions have the most potential for traffic I think,
and those are most appropriate for comp.*. Google provides a service,
not a software product, not a protocol, not hardware etc. in a pinch,
it might fit into comp.soft-sys.*, but it is likely we will see more
pure service platforms in the platform, e.g., Facebook.

an alternative with a different focus is misc.consumer.google, or
something in the vein of comp.society.{futures,privacy}. in those
cases, I think it is awkward to make a provider specific group, there
is little tradition for that outside comp.* and rec.*

--
Kjetil T.

Kjetil Torgrim Homme <kjetilho@ifi.uio.no> writes:

> my favourite would be comp.services.google.

I like this; this is the best name I've heard so far, and I think
that it would make for a good overall hierarchy.

- Tim Skirvin (skirv@big-8.org)
--
http://www.big-8.org/ Big-8 Management Board
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 22:52:43 CST, Kjetil Torgrim Homme
<kjetilho@ifi.uio.no> wrote:

>[Jim Riley]:
>>
>> Any group with "business" in the name is going to attract people
>> wanting to do business using this internet-thingy, and would have
>> to be moderated. See misc.business.records-mgmt. In the case of
>> misc.business.google, it would probably get a mix of people who
>> don't see "google" in the name and those who advertise with
>> Google.
>
>agreed.
>
>> How about misc.internet.google?
>
>my favourite would be comp.services.google. relatively technical
>questions and discussions have the most potential for traffic I think,
>and those are most appropriate for comp.*.

I don't think that the fact that it is computer-based necessarily
qualifies it for the comp.* hierarchy, unless we are really talking
about people using the Google search engine for their internal
records, or embedding Google Earth in their applications. If that is
the case, then comp.infosystems.* would be a possible candidate.

comp.services.* could just as likely be for comp.services.bureau or
for what a server provides, or for system services provided by an
operating system.

> Google provides a service,
>not a software product, not a protocol, not hardware etc. in a pinch,
>it might fit into comp.soft-sys.*, but it is likely we will see more
>pure service platforms in the platform, e.g., Facebook.
>
>an alternative with a different focus is misc.consumer.google, or
>something in the vein of comp.society.{futures,privacy}. in those
>cases, I think it is awkward to make a provider specific group, there
>is little tradition for that outside comp.* and rec.*

comp.society doesn't really belong in the comp.* hierarchy.
--
Jim Riley

macarro wrote:
>
> catherine yronwode wrote:

> > My isp doesn't carry it [google.public.support.general[.
> >
> > Can one post there without having a google account?
>
> Yes you can it works like any other group,it is not moderated.

On looking at the namespace, though, it seems to be a support group --
that is, a place where folks with poblems and issues go to get answers
and/or meet other people with the same problems and issues. But the
proposal is for a general discussion group ABOUT google. To make this
clearer -- i do not think that news about google stock options or
google's involvement in lawsuits is appropriate for a group with
"public.support" in its heirarchical namspace. Anti-trust lawsuits may
be "public," but those issues do not require "support."

cat yronwode

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:08:52 CST
tskirvin@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) wrote:

> In alt.config, a user has recently requested the discussion of a
Yes - it was me who reauested, but anyway thanks for keeping my name private.

--
Ikannz Bantisls <ibantisls1989@lavabit.com>

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:16:00 CST
"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <moleski@canisius.edu> wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:08:52 CST, tskirvin@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) wrote in <tskirvin.20070613175428$71c0@cairo.ks.uiuc.edu> :
>
> > ... I'm not really sure what the proper
> >namespace would be yet; I personally offer either soc.web.google or
> >soc.web.search-engines.google, but I'm sure that somebody will have some
NO! Google is NOT a search engine. For me it is mostly an e-mail service - I do like MSN search even more.

And also once was proposal alt.free.mailservers.googlegmail SO it should NOT be newsgroup about Google search or Google mail but about Google at all.
> --
> Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB) -- http://www.big-8.org
> Unless otherwise indicated, I speak for myself, not for the Board.

My opinion remains comp.internet.google since Google is an Internet company; true? Not only web since it provides Jabber service as well as POP/SMTP that is NOT web at all because Web is WWW only.

--
Ikannz Bantisls <ibantisls1989@lavabit.com>

Brian Palmer <bpalmer@rescomp.Stanford.EDU> writes:

>> What would you suggest for a name?

> I have no good ideas; a sign, I believe, that the topic is ill-suited
> to Usenet.

I don't buy this. Just because a topic is difficult to name
doesn't mean it can't be talked about. If no perfect namespace can be
found, I see no problems with compromising on a merely adequate name.

>> But it *is* being talked about, near-constantly. The privacy
>> issues regarding Google's ventures tend to make the front page of most
>> news sites every week or so. New services make the front pages of
>> newspapers. They're as influential as Microsoft, at least, and as such
>> they *are* discussed.

> That doesn't a forum make. A newsgroup should have a chance at
> building a community ; a lot of very shallow, transitory interest is
> not suited for a fixed newsgroup.

I don't know if that's really true either. Certainly, many of the
groups I read nowadays are less about the community, and more about just
the topic at hand; and while that's a bit of a shame, I don't know that
it's necessarily the end of the world. The community often grows over
time...

>> And besides, I see something silly about a world where
>> we can have dozens of *.ms-windows.* and other OS newsgroups, but nothing
>> discussing web applications in any form. There's something backwards
>> about that.

> Ah, so you want a web applications newsgroup. That sounds a lot more
> promising than this nebulous "talk about google" group.

Hey, if you want to propose something general like that, I'd
probably support it. I worry, though, that we need something a bit more
specific to really gather traffic in the first place.

- Tim Skirvin (skirv@big-8.org)
--
http://www.big-8.org/ Big-8 Management Board
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:08:52 CST
tskirvin@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) wrote:

> Thoughts?

My final thought for now.

Google SHOULD NOT HAVE represented in Big-8. Anyway, Google is company - it is not public interest!

I created alt.free.mailservers and think that discussing mail servers can be in Big-8. But discussing one company... even the biggest one - NO!
(But now moving alt.free.mailservers ot Big-8 would not be so good idea... though??? Maybe! But I never heard of moving alt group to Big-8.)

So my opinion is to continue promoting alt.comp.google although Tim thanks for very much... but Big-8 is in my opinion is more serious thing and it should not be personalies or companies discussed here - even Putin or Bush - even Google or Microsoft.

--
Ikannz Bantisls <ibantisls1989@lavabit.com>