Re: Taking out the garbage
- From: Jeff Wexler <jw@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:24:14 GMT
In article
<f55a827e-5518-4928-9c82-4ee184142d92@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Ray M. Owen" <raymowen@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
MY question to the RAMPSers is, do you want to do the following (or
some variation on the theme):
Do you want to create a GOOGLE group with access limited to members.
All members would be able to post without having someone approve it.
There is still a lot of confusion here even amongst our very brightest,
all with good intentions but not enough understanding (and no, I don't
need another lecture about how "usenet was around way before Google"
because that seems to have just furthered the muddy waters).
It seems as if the experience of r.a.m.p.s. for most of our users is
either through a proper newsreader client application accessing
newsgroups hosted on a server (typically the Internet server provider
company from which you get your internet connection), or by using Google
to access the same newsgroup data through Google's servers. This access
is loosely referred to as a "Google Group" which it is not. Google
informs you of this when accessing r.a.m.p.s., a usenet newsgroup, and
makes it very clear that you are being given access to an open, free and
unmoderated usenet group.
Now, the suggestion that r.a.m.p.s. should move to a Google Group has
been roundly attacked "Google is the problem!!!" blah, blah, blah, but
this demonstrates a misunderstanding of what a true Google Group is.
Google does provide a very good service, setting up a Google Group,
which can take many different forms, has very configurable access and
permissions, and bears no resemblance (other than appearance) to the
"Google Groups access" to a usenet group. I have set up several Google
Groups and have been very pleased with their functioning.
So, r.a.m.p.s. could transition from a usenet newsgroup to a Google
Group and the majority of the spam problems and security and access
problems would be solved --- but I am not sure everyone would prefer
this to our existing newsgroup.
As most of you know, I did set up 3 other "group forum meeting sites"
with one of them being a Google Group. I have abandoned the Google Group
but have kept the other two going quite nicely. Both of the sites were
done as an alternative to the r.a.m.p.s. usenet group. The Discussion
Group, started in 2005, now has over 1500 members and is enjoyed daily
by many of the same people that participate here on r.a.m.p.s. The other
group, more of a social networking type site with many more features and
greater usability, is called CinemaSound and again, has many of the same
people participating.
So, there are choices but I'm not sure that we need MORE places to talk,
ask questions, rant, and at times sling mud at one another. This usenet
group will always have the best aspects of usenest and all the
liabilities, we just have to deal with it.
On a happier note, our annual NAB r.a.m.p.s. party was a total success
and a great time was had by all. Both Jim Feeley and Dave Edgar made
some very good choices and did all the pre-production work for us. The
new place, Satay Grille, was comfortable and informal, and the food was
great.
Regards, Jeff Wexler
.
- References:
- Re: Taking out the garbage
- From: Richard Crowley
- Re: Taking out the garbage
- From: 0junk4me
- Re: Taking out the garbage
- From: GatorAudio
- Re: Taking out the garbage
- From: Ray M. Owen
- Re: Taking out the garbage
- Prev by Date: WTB: Lectrosonics RM
- Next by Date: Re: Brain surgeon
- Previous by thread: Re: google sucks, was Taking out the garbage
- Next by thread: WTB Denecke SB-2(A)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
