|
Science Forum Index » Astro - Amateur Forum » At what point do the amateur astronomers give up?
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| ukastronomy |
 Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
There is so little astronomy being posted to this group that I am
starting to wonder if there is any point continuing to post here.
Although the number of hits per day on my web site continues to climb
the percentage of hits that come via Google groups has declined quite
steeply in recent weeks. Perhaps amateur astronomers are moving away
from the unmoderated mess that Google groups has become?
Martin Nicholson
Daventry, UK |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ukastronomy |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I simply don't know if potential sources of the quality postings that
Sam and I would both welcome currently view this group. Some of the
moderated astro groups have multiple useful posts everyday - not
something you can say about Google groups!
On 21 Apr, 15:38, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Quote: ukastronomy wrote:
There is so little astronomy being posted to this group that I am
starting to wonder if there is any point continuing to post here.
Although the number of hits per day on my web site continues to climb
the percentage of hits that come via Google groups has declined quite
steeply in recent weeks. Perhaps amateur astronomers are moving away
from the unmoderated mess that Google groups has become?
Martin Nicholson
Daventry, UK
If each observational astronomer would dedicate his or herself
to raising the signal to noise ratio in the newsgroup, ignoring
the troll posts, newsgroup health would improve. Making use of
message filters and making quality postings helps immensely. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ukastronomy |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
What newsgroup reader would you suggest colleagues should use?
Quote:
BTW, I don't know what Google Groups has to do with anything. Nobody
serious about newsgroup participation would use that horrible system.
Moving away from Google Groups doesn't mean moving away from Usenet.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Martin Brown |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 21, 4:24 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
Quote: BTW, I don't know what Google Groups has to do with anything. Nobody
serious about newsgroup participation would use that horrible system.
Moving away from Google Groups doesn't mean moving away from Usenet.
There are two problems with Google groups and Gmail - a lot of the
Usenet flooding is presently originating from them and the increased
bandwidth is stressing out the weaker Usenet servers.
The second problem is that with the success of TV on demand like BBCs
iPlayer ISPs are pulling Usenet news servers to recover bandwidth for
on demand media streaming. My own ISP no longer offers a Usenet feed
and the third party one I subscribe to now has collapsed in a heap
under the deluge of "Copy watch" adverts.
Regards,
Martin Brown
(posting from Google groups since that still works - painful as it is
to use) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Chris.B |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 21, 6:38 pm, catzz66 <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
Quote:
Don't use Google groups. With a little filtration and a real news
server, SAA is not bad.
I arrived via Google groups yesterday to be confronted with wall to
wall spam.
In a fit of rebellion I posted empty threads to push the spam off the
bottom of the board.
I was then "plonked" by Greg and told by Google (?) that I had used up
my all allotted posts within some unknown time limit.
I looked back an hour later to see if I could post on astronomy and
found the spammers had refilled the board but I still couldn't post on
topic.
Oh the irony! s.a.a. is dead. Google is responsible. Money wins. We
lose. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Sam Wormley |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
ukastronomy wrote:
Quote: There is so little astronomy being posted to this group that I am
starting to wonder if there is any point continuing to post here.
Although the number of hits per day on my web site continues to climb
the percentage of hits that come via Google groups has declined quite
steeply in recent weeks. Perhaps amateur astronomers are moving away
from the unmoderated mess that Google groups has become?
Martin Nicholson
Daventry, UK
If each observational astronomer would dedicate his or herself
to raising the signal to noise ratio in the newsgroup, ignoring
the troll posts, newsgroup health would improve. Making use of
message filters and making quality postings helps immensely. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| TBerk |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 21, 7:30 am, ukastronomy <martin_piers_nichol...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
Quote: There is so little astronomy being posted to this group that I am
starting to wonder if there is any point continuing to post here.
To quote a recent hit tune:
I won't give up, You don't give up...
I lost my toy-like Funscope to misadventure (you can ick your freinds
but not your relatives.)
I retain the reflector although it is storage right now. (But the eye
piece is in my dresser drawer.)
I also lost the old binoculars, things took a turn for the worse
recently.
Still, I am doing bare eye observation almost nightly, tonight there
is a big ol honking satellite in the sky. Check it out.
TBerk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| TBerk |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 21, 8:24 am, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
<snip>
Quote: BTW, I don't know what Google Groups has to do with anything. Nobody
serious about newsgroup participation would use that horrible system.
Moving away from Google Groups doesn't mean moving away from Usenet.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com
Unfortunately, until just recently It has been a matter of access and
economics, at least in my case.
Despite setbacks and things to overcome I have retained and sought out
things that interest me; hence my seemingly non-telescope based peanut
gallery chirping from time to time.
(Every see that poster with the kitten on the knotted rope end?)
Things are improving but for the recent past and the near future
access to Newsgroups has been only available to me via Google.
Even so, while I _really_ do want to buy a great looking, classic
style watch- I can do with out the spam.
TBerk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Chris L Peterson |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 07:30:49 -0700 (PDT), ukastronomy
<martin_piers_nicholson@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Quote: There is so little astronomy being posted to this group that I am
starting to wonder if there is any point continuing to post here.
Although the number of hits per day on my web site continues to climb
the percentage of hits that come via Google groups has declined quite
steeply in recent weeks. Perhaps amateur astronomers are moving away
from the unmoderated mess that Google groups has become?
I still follow the group, and post sometimes. Certainly, traffic is low
these days. Maybe SAA will come back, maybe its day is passed. But if
you appreciated it for its possibilities (and its history), keep
posting. Nothing will finish it off faster than if those with bona fide
astronomical posts give up.
BTW, I don't know what Google Groups has to do with anything. Nobody
serious about newsgroup participation would use that horrible system.
Moving away from Google Groups doesn't mean moving away from Usenet.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jim |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2008-04-21, Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
Quote: BTW, I don't know what Google Groups has to do with anything. Nobody
serious about newsgroup participation would use that horrible system.
Moving away from Google Groups doesn't mean moving away from Usenet.
The problem with Google Groups is that huge amounts of usenet spam come from
there. New accounts are set up quicker than Google can shut them down. A lot
of people have been forced to add killfile rules that block anything coming
from Google Groups.
The net result is that usenet is becoming harder to use. Perhaps that's
partly why web-based forums are increasing in popularity. It's a great
shame. I just hope Google can do something about it.
Jim
--
http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk
"Don't you *dare* use the word 'party' as a verb in this shop!"
-- Bernard Black, 'Black Books' |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Chris L Peterson |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:26:46 -0700 (PDT), ukastronomy
<martin_piers_nicholson@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Quote: What newsgroup reader would you suggest colleagues should use?
I use Agent. But there are perfectly fine readers built into Outlook
Express, Thunderbird, and other mail programs. There are also many free
or cheap standalone newsreaders like Agent. All of these offer the
mail-like convenience of Usenet.
Google Groups isn't a newsreader, it's a rather ugly and unfeatured web
interface.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| catzz66 |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
ukastronomy wrote:
Quote: There is so little astronomy being posted to this group that I am
starting to wonder if there is any point continuing to post here.
Although the number of hits per day on my web site continues to climb
the percentage of hits that come via Google groups has declined quite
steeply in recent weeks. Perhaps amateur astronomers are moving away
from the unmoderated mess that Google groups has become?
Martin Nicholson
Daventry, UK
Don't use Google groups. With a little filtration and a real news
server, SAA is not bad. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| David Weinshenker |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Chris.B" wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 21, 6:38 pm, catzz66 <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
Don't use Google groups. With a little filtration and a real news
server, SAA is not bad.
I arrived via Google groups yesterday to be confronted with wall to
wall spam.
In a fit of rebellion I posted empty threads to push the spam off the
bottom of the board.
I was then "plonked" by Greg and told by Google (?) that I had used up
my all allotted posts within some unknown time limit.
I looked back an hour later to see if I could post on astronomy and
found the spammers had refilled the board but I still couldn't post on
topic.
Oh the irony! s.a.a. is dead. Google is responsible. Money wins. We
lose.
Is that what all the apparent "test" messages were about?
Seems like posting in odd ways in order to manipulate the way
that messages are displayed on the Google site is quixotic at
best... if you can install a web-browser on your computer, you
should be able to install a news/mail client (like "Thunderbird"
etc.) and connect via a genuine news server.
-dave w |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| David Weinshenker |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Chris.B" wrote:
Quote: Oh the irony! s.a.a. is dead. Google is responsible. Money wins. We
lose.
"Money wins" is an interesting hypothesis, but I fail to see
what commercial benefit accrues to Google by garfing up the
usenet interface the way they have... I appreciate that they
have preserved and continued the searchable "lookback" archive
from deja.com, but the deja web page posting/browsing interface
was at least relatively usable; I am at a total loss to understand
what business opportunity Google gained by breaking it as they did.
-dave w |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Margo Schulter |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Quote: If each observational astronomer would dedicate his or herself
to raising the signal to noise ratio in the newsgroup, ignoring
the troll posts, newsgroup health would improve. Making use of
message filters and making quality postings helps immensely.
Hi, Sam.
Please let me agree that more posts about observational astronomy
are an obvious reply to the problem of off-topic postings. I have
some observational reports to write up, and others may be in this
position also. Although I've been involved with this forum for less
than a year, it has an illustrious history that I'd like to see
continue.
Best,
Margo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
