Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > OT: How to actually complain to GOOGLE

Reply
Thread Tools

OT: How to actually complain to GOOGLE

 
 
Bill Rude
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-10-2005
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:50:02 GMT, Ben Thomas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I sent a complaint and suggested they block posts that have follow-ups only set
>to groups other than the group the original post was posted to.


Send another complaint and tell them that should trun off the poster's ability
to control follow ups to avoid a UDP.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ed Ruf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-10-2005
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 07:55:49 -0500, in rec.photo.digital "Don Dunlap"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Would it help if everyone on the forum sent an e-mail to Google saying that
>they would not use the Google search site unless something was done to
>correct the problem? We would have to also say that we would actively
>campaign other forums to do the same. I know most people on the forum
>wouldn't follow through, but maybe enough would to make it effective.
>Google makes their money when people use their site to navigate to business
>sites.
>
>Is this worth a try?


You could also use the X-No-Archive: yes tag to stop Google from archiving
your posts. And set your newreader to preserve this setting if you reply to
someone who has done this. Personally, I do this as I object to the google
groups copywright/terms of use statements. It's gotten less obtrusive with
time, but is still more than I believe is the minimum necessary for their
service.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ((E-Mail Removed))
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...ral/index.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Confused
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2005
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
> Subject: Re: OT: How to actually complain to GOOGLE
> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:28:06 +0100
> Organization: CERN - European Laboratory for Particle Physics
> Message-ID: <(E-Mail Removed)>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: pcitps345.cern.ch
> X-Trace: sunnews.cern.ch 1108042091 20457 (None) 137.138.33.76
>
> Sorry, f-up ignored since I don't read rec.photo.digital


Thanks for pointing out the bloody obvious!

Kill file users who cross post!

Jeff
 
Reply With Quote
 
Kevin McMurtrie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Stacey <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
>
> > Ask your news provider to filter Google more aggressively. Their
> > spam/troll floods are well known with admins.

>
>
> The problem is these aren't FROM google groups posters. Someone using google
> posts to another group and the sets the responces here so we get FLOODED
> with legitimate responders who don't realise they are being scammed into
> flooding this group. There is no good way to filter this garbage. Obviously
> a very childish person with WAY too much time on their hands doing this.


The source is Google. The floods we see here are followups to spam
having a follow-up header set here.

Google has several security problems that make them an excellent
resource for Usenet abusers.

- They hope to defer abuse handling by showing the poster's IP address.
That could work to a small extent but they accept postings from
unmaintained networks.

- Abuse complaints are not handled in a timely manner, or even at all.
Forgeries are not cancelled and unmaintained networks are not blocked
from posting.

- Account verification works with malformed and deceptive e-mail
addresses. It accepts
"Spoofed Name <spoofed@address>"<verification@address>

- Outgoing spam detection is weak or nonexistent.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2005
"Ed Ruf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 07:55:49 -0500, in rec.photo.digital "Don Dunlap"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >Would it help if everyone on the forum sent an e-mail to Google saying

that
> >they would not use the Google search site unless something was done to
> >correct the problem? We would have to also say that we would actively
> >campaign other forums to do the same. I know most people on the forum
> >wouldn't follow through, but maybe enough would to make it effective.
> >Google makes their money when people use their site to navigate to

business
> >sites.
> >
> >Is this worth a try?

>
> You could also use the X-No-Archive: yes tag to stop Google from archiving
> your posts. And set your newreader to preserve this setting if you reply

to
> someone who has done this. Personally, I do this as I object to the google
> groups copywright/terms of use statements. It's gotten less obtrusive with
> time, but is still more than I believe is the minimum necessary for their
> service.


FYI, the way Google Groups2-Beta now treats X-No-Archive will more than
likely still result in the post getting archived.

You see, the post will still be available on Google Groups for seven days.
Now, assuming no one actually quotes the post in seven days--only then the
post will be no longer be available and will never be searchable (at least,
that's what Groups2-Beta help seems to lead me to believe).

Realistically, all it takes is for one person to quote the post, and guess
what--it's archived as part of someone else's reply.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Ernie Klein
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-13-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Kevin McMurtrie <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Stacey <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> >
> > > Ask your news provider to filter Google more aggressively. Their
> > > spam/troll floods are well known with admins.

> >
> >
> > The problem is these aren't FROM google groups posters. Someone using google
> > posts to another group and the sets the responces here so we get FLOODED
> > with legitimate responders who don't realise they are being scammed into
> > flooding this group. There is no good way to filter this garbage. Obviously
> > a very childish person with WAY too much time on their hands doing this.

>
> The source is Google. The floods we see here are followups to spam
> having a follow-up header set here.
>

I simply told my newsreader filter that if the 'From:' contains 'google'
OR if the 'Organization:' contains 'google', OR if the 'References:'
contain 'google' then kill the article. Instead of seeing 500+ unread
articles, most being junk, I now only see about 140, most of which are
legitimate. Most legitimate posters don't use google so the chance of
killing a good article is a chance I am willing to take in order to
eliminate the junk. Most (good) newsreaders have a similar filter
option.

--
-Ernie-

"There are only two kinds of computer users -- those who have
suffered a catastrophic hard drive failure, and those who will."

Have you done your backup today?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: How include a large array? Edward A. Falk C Programming 1 04-04-2013 08:07 PM
How do I complain to google? Fred NZ Computing 5 12-08-2012 04:59 AM
IIS using port other than 80 makes VS complain sklett ASP .Net 1 04-03-2004 01:37 AM
Bill complain still no reply m.chauhan7 Computer Support 6 02-19-2004 11:52 PM
Help ! XML file complain CWM. Pronto XML 0 09-15-2003 03:37 PM



Advertisments