Talk:Google Groups

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Websites / Computing  (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Internet (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Google (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Alphabet Task Force (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Alphabet Task Force, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alphabet Inc. articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the Alphabet Task Force discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Former good article nominee Google Groups was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
July 23, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed

Before Deja[edit]

Wasn't DejaNews called something else before that? Damned if I can remember, but I'm pretty sure it started with an S. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 16:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You may be thinking of SIFT, aka the Stanford Netnews Filtering Service. It did offer Web-based search at some point, but was a rather different animal. When Deja started, SIFT was basically an email-based clipping service. That all died out a long time ago, (t was before that) is more or less its successor. --iMb~Meow 16:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I dug up a little bit, InReference started doing Web-based search in 1997. [1] --iMb~Meow 17:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Not what I was thinking of. It was a service that was initially free, then I believe went partial subscription, then turned into or got bought by DejaNews. I think it had a non-relevant name (a la Yahoo). I think "Super" was part of the name. Like I said, I'm really at a loss here to come up with anything more convincing than my own shoddy memory. This would have been circa 1995. Oh well. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 19:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, it was called Deja Vu. That's french for AltaVista, and DV was the news archive of AltaVista. I don't know why the article doesn't mention this; I can't substantiate this claim right now, so I'm not changing the article. But if you know it was called Deja Vu, then you can explain why the service provided by Google is known to some as "DejaGoo" (and I've never come across the usage "DejaGoogle"). MrDemeanour 14:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Deja vu is French for Alta Vista, deja vu means "already seen" and alta vista means "high view". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:38, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
Alta is "high", not "old"? Oh.
Anyway, I have a reference link for "Dejaview", which could be what I was thinking of - IEEE Annals of Computing History.
Unfortunately Deja View is now a Canadian TV channel, which kind of makes search-engine research more difficult.
I understand that DejaView may have been the name of the Deja News web-interface, which would explain me thinking that was the name of the service. MrDemeanour 17:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Outdated Images[edit]

Has anyone spotted any other outdated images other than the image of the Google Groups homepage when not logged in? --Troy Plummer 18:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I know the screenshots are oudated. I'm going to take a new series of screenshots, this time using Opera. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

DEJANEWS used to called REMARQ[edit]

This I am 100% certain of. The very first web-based USENET indexing site was called REMARQ ( The people that started DejaNews acquired remarq and its assests and renamed the site to I find it very strange that I can find almost no reference to the even existence of anywhere in this article. In fact, its hard to find stuff about it on the web in general.

I swear to god, remarq existed ...somebody else other than me has to remember this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The name rings a bell. I started using usenet back in about 1994. I believe I recall Remarq from about that time or shortly (a year or two) afterwards. Toby Douglass (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Remarq was a seperate service, they used to offer paid searches and the like. Deja and Remarq both existed site by side and Deja may have acauired Remarq but Deja and mark were seperate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC) is now (2010) owned by Supernews, formerly, one of the earliest premium usenet providers. Shalom S. (talk) 04:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Deja's honoring of requests to change posts[edit]

As for the part that said: "At one point in 1998, DejaNews even honored requests to change contents or headers of posts that were already in the archive. Occasionally a person would modify posts made by an adversary by forging their Internet address onto requests to change the posts."

This is actually true. I don't know who deleted this paragraph, but Deja in 1998 definitely did honor requests to change posts, and some of them were modified by forgers. 03:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. Deja did honor requests to change posts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Images and Feedback[edit]

Although I am working on cleaning up the article, and would appreciate feedback on it, you can edit the image tags to position the images properly - I don't know how to do this and if you want, you can explain how at my talk page. In addition, for the unformatted image that appears after the second paragraph in the "Interface and Features" section (NOT the small, right-aligned image), I want to show an external link, which when clicked on, displays a picture, instead of including the picture in the article. How do I do this? J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Although I know that peer review is not the best way to get feedback on a new article, when I sent a {{helpme}} request asking how to get feedback for my articles, I was pointed here. Could someone suggest a better way for me to get feedback on my new articles? J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Google Groups Archives dates back to...[edit]

The Google Groups article states that "They can also create their own groups and access Usenet newsgroups dating back to 1975." But this is not true because the oldest USENET article dates back to 1981. More Information can be found here: - I will change that on the article. Albert Valentin

Actually I checked the link provided above, and it appears that all the links older than 1983 are now dead.Ottawahitech (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Updates to Google Groups interface and list of notable Google groups.[edit]

Google Groups has recently undergone several major updates, particularly to the interface, with new features. Do you think I should take screenshots of the new Google Groups homepage and upload them to the article? I have changed my browser from Mozilla Firefox to Opera, so should I take the screenshots in Opera, given that the current screenshots were taken in Firefox?

In addition, do you think I should include a list of notable Google groups? One such group is Gmail Help Discussion, an official group for Gmail users to ask questions and give answers about Gmail. I know several other official groups that deserve mention, as well as some unofficial groups that deserve mention. For Google groups, the criteria for notability will focus less on Wikipedia's criteria. It will instead focus on the membership count and activity of the group, as well as the content of the group (groups filled with spam will not be included) and its impact on Google Groups as a whole. Usenet groups will not be included. Groups containing adult content will not be included.

I understand the disadvantages of including such a list, such as spam links, so I wish to discuss this with other users before adding the list. Meanwhile, I will discuss on Google Groups to determine which groups will get listed.

In addition, I am considering creating a Google group for Wikipedia, and if it grows large and active enough, I will list it here. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I would consider group listing here advertisement. Concerning a Wikipedia Google Group, has one been made?Jasper Deng (talk) 06:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Beta Software tag[edit]

Is Google Groups really beta software? I know google label it as such, but nevertheless I'm unsure whether it warrants the beta software tag. --OscarthecatFlag of the United Kingdom.svg 13:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I added this because Google classes it as beta, Google says a lot of their servicesa are beta, and surely they do it for a reason which isn't clear to the pulic. We should rea\lly respect this as an encyclopaedia. Martin Porcheron 20:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Google Groups is no longer beta as of today (1/24/07) and according to [2], so I'm removing the beta tag. --LoganK 18:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Difference between Google groups and Usenet groups[edit]

Perhaps the article should be more clear about the difference between Google groups and Usenet groups (which appear as the same thing to people who read them through the Google interface): this is not obvious for newbies. Apokrif 15:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

And an endless source of annoyance to the rest of the usenet population. I think the article should be re-written to more clearly reflect what are its origins and what are later google embracings and extendings. Perhaps a separate section on the conflict it creates within usenet (many people will tell googlegroupers to fuck off, or will just entirely killfile and ignore them). Also: google groups abuse handling is very poor, giving them a poor reputation with actual usenet server admins. I think that this article is not a good article as it is leaves out the views of the larger usenet population on this service. (talk) 09:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Seems very similar to the hostility of long-time Usenetters towards AOL users as documented in Eternal September. As with that article, any commentary bemoaning the arrival of clueless newbies is almost always original research. There have to be reliable sources to merit inclusion in this article -- and as a leaderless community, USENET doesn't really have a reliable source of information of its own. White 720 (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Failed GA[edit]

Unsourced section. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 11:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR suffocated me again. I considered Richardshusr's nomination of this article, which I wrote, premature and too early. I plan on expanding and improving the article in August, then sending it for a Peer Review so it will become a Good Article by September. Although finding sources will be a huge problem, I'd appreciate your feedback on this article. I also withdrew Richardshusr's Good Article nomination of the other article I wrote, Homerun, because I consider the nomiation premature and don't want it to affect Homerun's future chances of becoming a Good Article after I expand (and Peer Review) it in August and September. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I would have hoped for a more expansive analysis of the areas where the article needed improvement to reach GA status. If one unsourced section is the only deficiency, then that should be easily addressed. Perhaps a peer review would help.

--Richard 05:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Your unsourced section could be rewritten to incorporate and reference the recent discovery of "copyrighted" materials through Google Groups, and the battle between Google and the DMCA. Here is the letter sent to Google, and a FAQ page. This is a security-driven issue.Groovyjoker 19:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Digital Millenium Copyright Act

GA request of more comments[edit]

  • Lead section is a bit small.
  • History section should be bigger, at least give insight in what had. Give more details in what was the necessity of Google to acquire the Groups concept. Add information about Michael Schmitt findings of the posts on Groups before 1995 and stuff like that.
  • The Interface features sounds like a How-to guide to me. (I might be biaised) and this probably to decrease the number of threads dealing with the same topics over and over again. is original research.
  • Joining/subscribing to a group sounds like advertisement.
  • Official Google Groups sounds like advertisement. Reducing it to the minimum would help and adding prose would also be beneficial. Lincher 01:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Google Groups & Usenet[edit]

Google Groups is commonly criticized for being a poor Usenet interface. I don't know the details (ie what other Usenet providers have that Google Groups doesn't) since I do use Google Groups, but I've seen the criticisms a million times. There should be a note of that in the criticisms section. I don't know of any official references (which is why I'm not putting it there myself; I don't want to get attacked for WP:NOR), but it's a fact that should be noted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dlevenstein (talkcontribs) 01:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

I've just been trying to look at some old Usenet posts from around the turn of the century, and Google Groups has made it REALLY hard for me to do this by ruining the principle behind threading. Rather than allowing me to browse discussion threads, I have to browse months and then the discussion threads within that month. It's a stinker. It would also be useful to have a 'dead' message where there was an X-Archive:No instruction so that I can see how many posts are missing. Things were fine in the dejanews days, and in the days before Google implemented its current Groups interface. Matthew 20:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
A reference for the criticism is found at and I have add a citation for it. Zen Clark (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Error: Beta redirects to old version...[edit]

I tried out Google Groups and noticed the new version (Beta) which I liked. Now, a few days after, I am no longer able to access any Beta-Groups pages because I get redirected instantly to the old version. This happens in Firefox and IE both, but luckily I am able to get in using Opera, but I don't normally use Opera and I guess nor does that many others, so "in practice" there is a serious problem. At least I suspect it doesn't only happen to me, this redirecting. I did look for information and there are a few pages on the web talking about his error, some are from several years back, I think. 14:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Groups beta has replaced the old Google Groups therefore the subdomain now redirects to If you are still seeing the old version of Google Groups (yellow) at then it may be a local caching issue with your ISP or local Google datacentre. Martin Porcheron need help? just ask! 11:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much for clearing that up, I see now that in Opera it also redirects, like you say, but it is still the blue "beta" design (in Firefox it is the yellow old design). I hadn't realized that the old Groups had been replaced by the (former) "beta" version. I guess the caching will only take a little while before they are updated then so that Firefox and IE will show the new version correctly... Thanks again. 13:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

New Google Groups Commonly Criticised[edit]

I tried to add this before, but it was removed for original research. I would think that Google Groups itself would serve as evidence that it is being criticized to this day. The link I had provided was [3]; just look at the group that that message connects to, and you'll notice users were screaming at Google from the start.

If you look at their Is Something Broken group, you'll notice that half the traffic is people yelling at Google to fix their interface, whether it be hot-headed posting or cool-headed posting the list of bugs and the sad fact of the matter that Google hasn't been there to help.

Does this not constitute as evidence? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dlevenstein (talkcontribs) 12:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

No, that's not really evidence, and is still mere opinion. There are plenty of people, including me, that like it. Mambo Jambo 22:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I still like it too, but I'm not talking about preferences; I'm talking about bugs and poor design for small monitors. Surely that counts for something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dlevenstein (talkcontribs) 23:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
Gah! I keep on forgetting to sign my posts! Sorry...--Dlevenstein 23:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Besides, I tried to put it in the criticisms section before; what was the point of the criticisms section if not for criticisms of Google Groups?--Dlevenstein 12:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Anyone???? Answers? --Dlevenstein 12:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy requires all information, including criticism, to be attributable to a reliable source. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Google-Groups.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Google-Groups.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Feature list collapsed[edit]

I removed a significant part of the feature list since this page looked an awful lot like an originally-researched user guide. Google's own help pages do a perfectly fine job of explaining how the features work. Only features unique to Google Groups or notable in their own right belong in this article. White 720 (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Usenet service Disruption[edit]

Is there any reference as to why Gooogle Groups is 8-12 hours behind on the posting of material since Monday afternoon, 3pm EDT? (18:00 UTC?) MMetro (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There have been "brownouts" with Google groups I remember two on usenet in the last 4 or 5 months. Listen to this : at one stage for a whole day no posts were getting through with Gmail at all. That also happened with groups. That is apart from groups disappearing which I believe is a flaw of Usenet on occasion. The issues with Gmail were covered at the time in the press. ( ) Jan 13th 2009

There is a "brownout" going on right now. As of August 3, 2011 I can't find any groups that have had any messages since Aug 1, 2011, including groups with normally heavy traffic. And for 3 days prior to Aug. 1 it was spotty with the groups being caught up in "spurts."

Browser based editing poor[edit]

In relation to the browser based editing on Wikipedia that on Google groups is extremely poor and also has no features. It does not manage to retain formatting at all. That is definitely an issue with Google groups IMO as a frequent poster through the service.

Jan 13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


The ratings for posts have disappeared. Perhaps there were too many complaints about trolls anonymously disparaging other people by trying to load up one star ratings? I'd like to get a reliable source on the matter. MMetro (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


Criticism must be backed up by reliable sources, not just speculation. Google Groups postings themselves are not reliable sources. White 720 (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Someone edited the article to read 'Google groups is an unreliable web service that sometimes provides...' If you wish to write about problems with the service please put it in the correct section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

June 2009 end to archiving?[edit]

All the archives stop at the end of May, 2009. A temporary problem with Google or an end to archiving? Macshill (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Just above there's talk about short-term brownouts over a period of 4-5 months. Applying Hanlon's razor, I'd suspect a temporary problem absent any official announcement. White 720 (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"Large scale failures" section[edit]

Because Google Groups is nothing but a big large-scale failure itself, we need to re-add this section.

Google refuses to repair its feature that used to allow people to delete posts made with an earlier e-mail address. Furthermore, it refuses to allow anyone to delete posts that were forged under their address.

Please cite reliable, verifiable sources for this argument. Otherwise, these statements are original research, which is not allowed here. Usenet posts are not reliable sources. White 720 (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you are upset that Google Groups has not performed to your expectations, but this is not a forum for voicing your disapproval. Please do not reinstate the history of Google Groups failures without verifiable, reliable sources to indicate why the list is notable. If you have concerns with Google Groups, please take them up with Google or use another USENET provider. (And please be civil with your edit summaries; words like "idiotism" are not appropriate.) White 720 (talk) 05:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi "White 720". There are 2 issues with the section. One is that user interface gripes have nothing to do with large scale failures and don't belong there. So I removed that. The second is that there is *no authority* (but there are verifiable and reliable sources) for facts about Google Groups Usenet outages. Instead of authorities that claim such facts, these facts are reflected by Google's own archive (no postings made via Google Groups in the outage periods) and by moderators's postings in moderated groups explaining the outages to users of the groups. These are easily verifiable sources, and far more reliable than referring to some authoritative web page that anyone can cook up. Now please stop your vandalism.
Please publish the results of your original research in a more appropriate place, such as on your personal blog or on Usenet. Wikipedia is not the place to voice your disapproval of Google or of anything else. (And please sign your comments by typing four tildes after them.) White 720 (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Readily available simple facts are not research. Facts do not voice disapproval: there is no emotional content in a fact. Information articles by the moderators of a moderated group are not self-published sources. Your behavior, removing facts that *in your opinion* can be interpreted as negative, is emotional and unprofessional. Why?
Please read WP:V, specifically the first paragraph, which states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." I haven't seen any citations yet by reliable, verifiable sources confirming the notability of weeklong Google Groups outages -- in contrast to Gmail, whose outages section cites a source. Simply providing a list of outages is not constructive, and I will continue to delete information that is not backed up by reliable, verifiable sources. White 720 (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Point: for consistency with GMail the section should probably be renamed "Outages". The sources cited (moderators of "big 8" group affected, Google apology for the outages) are reliable as sources, and both the sources and the facts are easily verifiable. Weeklong outages affecting all moderated Usenet groups are notable. This can not be in question. Nobody except you cares if the facts are "constructive", Wikipedia is not the place to provide criticism, constructive or not. Thus, your defense is not believable. It's a valuable service to remove bad information, subjective opinions etc., but please let the facts stand whether you like them or not.

Hi "White 720". Re your requirement for secondary sources. Secondary sources are needed for interpretations and other commentary. For simple facts about an event, only primary sources are needed. Secondary sources, based on primary sources, can only be better for aggregation of facts, checking consistency of a set of facts, statistics and the like. For a single simple fact the primary sources are most reliable, and a requirement of additional secondary sources based on the primary sources is meaningless except as a device to cast the fact in doubt. Which seems to be what you're attempting.

Hi. Web sites go down all the time, but Wikipedia only reports on those outages that are notable. A weeklong outage that only affects moderated Usenet groups is not notable unless you can show me that it is (and the threshold for inclusion is notability, not truth). There are plenty of facts about Google Groups that are not notable enough to be included here. See this old revision for an example of an article cluttered with miscellaneous information that, while factual, is not notable enough to include. White 720 (talk) 03:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Please stop your vandalism and disinformation. Two weeklong outages that (apparently) affected all moderated Usenet groups are notable by any reasonable standard. You actively mislead when you compare large scale outages lasting about *one week each* with facts about number of star symbols (and other irrelevancies) in a graphical user interface. You actively mislead, or lie, when you talk about "a weeklong outage", since there were two in the last two months. You actively mislead when you characterize the most reliable and most verifiable sources, e.g. Google itself apologizing for the outages, as not reliable or verifiable. You actively mislead when you characterize simple facts stated in neutral language as "voicing disapproval". And so on. So far I've not seen a single valid argument for or valid defense of your actions, only deception (as documented here) and subjective opinion.
The source you have cited only states that Google is "investigating" a report made to its help forum, not that (a) Google has acknowledged any outage or that (b) the outage is notable. White 720 (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
What's the purpose of public lying? First, numerous sources have been cited, not just one. Second, Google has not said what you purport to quote. In the source remaining after your n'th deletion Google states "We are aware of this issue and working on a fix. We apologize for the inconvenience.". Please stop your vandalism, disinformation and lying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
The first source you cited only quotes a Usenet poster named "Alf P. Steinbach," not anyone from Google. This is not a verifiable source. The source in the remaining paragraph only states that a Google representative "is aware" of the issue, not that it was resolved. White 720 (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Please stop your disinformation or, as may now be the case, making statements from ignorance. First, the source you reference is a message from the moderators of [comp.lang.c++.moderated], not as you indicate from some arbitrary Usenet poster. No article appears in the group unless it's approved by the moderators (other than the one posting, if a moderator makes a posting), and Alf is a moderator of that group, as you can additionally verify by clicking on the banner link at the bottom of the article, or any article in that group. Second, whether the outage is still ongoing is not in question: it was fixed. No source is needed to confirm that it was, as you write, "resolved". Apart from these two points, which I concede might be due to simple ignorance, your editing of the body text of the section seems good. However, you have changed the section heading so that it's now irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, "White 720". Your change of the section heading to "Moderation backlog" is misleading to the point of deception, since any reader of Wikipedia will think it refers to the Usenet groups, not to a moderation process for Wikipedia itself. The section refers to two recent outages where articles were completely lost, and users were informed by GG (incorrectly) that the articles were posted. I've therefore changed the heading back to "Outages", which is consistent with the heading used for the Wikipedia GMail article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That's fair. "Outages" is a reasonable title for the section, more so than "Large scale failures" because only one aspect of Usenet is affected. White 720 (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

We also need to mention the fact that Google Groups has NO customer support. None.

All it has is the "Is There Something Broken?" board - which they don't even read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Why? Most free services don't have "customer support" as you describe -- their customers are advertisers, not readers. White 720 (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
If it wasn't for us little ol' readers, Google wouldn't have any advertisers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC) (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC) (Google posting now working again)

Outages, again[edit]

The supposedly reliable source on the November 2009 outage, "Nomadic Psyche," states, "There is a major flaw with the Gooble replication technology that is not replicating changes I make to the internet." White 720 (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering how can one cite a "reliable source" when there is no public announcement from Google that there even is a problem (which is immediately obvious to anyone attempting to access Usenet through Google Groups between 2011-06-25 and 2011-06-30)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced Content Removal[edit]

I removed this phrase from the article: "Sometime around 2008 or 2009 Google also began removing and censoring entire Usenet groups in the alt.* category." - needing a citation since April 2010. It seems to be more due to poor software and/or a poor interface. Could not find any reference to censorship...other that this article... -- 22:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Why nothing in main article about dysfunctionality of usenet search functions?[edit]

The google-groups usenet search interface hasn't worked properly for years. Why isin't this mentioned in the main article?

Why isin't it mentioned how google apparently doesn't have the ability, or desire, to keep incoming spam and sporge floods out of it's usenet archive, nor does it exercise any competent ability to prevent spam from being posted from it's own google-groups user accounts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Google_Groups#Criticism White 720 (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Not the right place for outage notifications (or FUD, for that matter)[edit]

Since when did Wikipedia turn into Google's tech support forum? I share my fellow netters' frustration with the opacity of Google's "Report a bug" process, but I don't think that the summary of an encyclopedia article is the right place for breaking news or vendors' outage notifications. Likewise, there's no support for the assumption that Google was summarily ending support for Usenet, especially when this company has a history of announcing service/product retirements. Xenophon Fenderson (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Then where is the right place? There are frequent outages, like the one going on now from Aug 1, 2011 - present (Aug 3, 2011) but there is nowhere on Google that mentions this and nowhere that I can find to report it to Google or ask about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried the Google Groups feedback form? It looks like their only contact option. White 720 (talk) 03:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I did try that yesterday twice and got error screens. It works today and I left a note. Hopefully their current outage won't go on for too many more days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The main errors on that page seem to be:
1. If you paste in a browser URL you need to change https to http before you submit
2. They take no notice of the bug reports
Robert EA Harvey (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011 outage[edit]

Google promises fix for jittery Usenet addicts — "According to a Google spokeswoman, the company has not killed its Usenet service. It'sis merely experiencing some technical difficulties. 'Beginning last week, Groups had intermittent issues with mirroring Usenet messages, that means messages posted to Usenet experienced a delay in appearing in Google Groups. We have identified the issue, and are in the process of patching it. In the next few days, the Usenet archives will catchup and become current again,' she told us." White 720 (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Silent ominous change[edit]

I think I have observed a change in google searches since about a month ago (it is now 2011 August). If I am correct, it urgently needs to be presented here and discussed in other forums.

Apparently, Google is no longer honoring this statement:

Activities that don't require a Google Account:

    Reading posts in public groups

from this page:

It is increasing impossible to find (non-commercial) information on the net without logging in to Google to read it (other than at Wikipedia, of course! :). This would be a arrogant and nefarious new push of the Google brand at a time when the government is promising us that they will investigate Google monopolistic practices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by W4714261 (talkcontribs) 05:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The point is, they seem to be using a new technology where their search engine can find material but users can't - without logging in first. Or is this the way Google Groups has always worked, but there's an explosive new level of use of that "product"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by W4714261 (talkcontribs) 05:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if alternate seach engines (yahoo is the only one, I guess) can index Google Groups? — Preceding unsigned comment added by W4714261 (talkcontribs) 06:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Besides the fact that you must adhere to a neutral point of view about Google, you haven't provided a reliable source. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I have seen this myself, and tracked it down to bad Google cookies. I verified it as follows: While not logged in to any Google services, perform a google search for anything likely to have a presence on Google Groups ("Google Groups netscape" is a good example). Click on a result that links to Note the Google sign-in page, with no way to navigate to the actual content of the search result without logging in. Then delete all cookies pertaining to ( is not sufficient). Try the above again and it should work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Not Blocked In Turkey[edit]

Google Groups has not been blocked in Turkey from the time I got here (August 2011) until the present. Unfortunately, it is very hard to find up-to-date information in English on censorship here, and particularly what WP considers reliable sources. So, I just thought I'd mention that. —Quintucket (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Taking advantage of the captcha, here's a multilingual person, hats off.

Love this browser,[edit]

but might someone read only Günther's post? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Plain explanation of Google groups, please[edit]

Can there be an intro saying what a GG is, and what it can be used for, as things currently stand? Some people may prefer to understand it from an historical development perspective, but many will need to know what it is now, rather than its ontology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Gg couldn't have possibly started in 2001[edit]

There are older posts on gg as you can see with this post[1] made on October 9, 2000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Google Groups. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Google Groups. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^!topic/dfw.general/4aiQdCXhfKA