3 ms·
That’s cool, I’m glad they didn’t remove stuff. For the life of me I don’t see how one would discover that or other historic groups. It seems like at the mini
by alex_young 2y ago
That’s cool, I’m glad they didn’t remove stuff. For the life of me I don’t see how one would discover that or other historic groups.
It seems like at the minimum they removed the index of them or at least made it hard to discover.
- Thorrez 2y agoIt doesn't look like the index is gone to me. E.g.: https://groups.google.com/search?q=%22Has%20anyone%20ever%20did%20a%20CT%20scan%20and%20found%20calcification%20of%20the%20thyroid%22 https://groups.google.com/search?q=%22Has%20anyone%20ever%20... https://groups.google.com/search/groups?q=%22sci.med%22 https://groups.google.com/search/groups?q=%22sci.med%22 Were Usenet groups ever easier to discover in Google Groups than this?
- alex_young 2y agoHere’s an example: http://web.archive.org/web/20120329085532/https://groups.google.com/groups/dir?hl=en&lnk=od&hl=en http://web.archive.org/web/20120329085532/https://groups.goo...
- Thorrez 2y agoHmm, interesting. That's listing 15 groups out of 6 million. I'm not sure how those 15 were chosen. They seem to be popular groups, so I'm guessing it's ordered in some way that correlates with popularity, however they're not sorted by number or subscribers, number of messages per month, whether they're Usenet or not, or alphabetically. I wonder how many people found that page useful. With 6 million groups, are people going to find the one they want by going page-by-page 15 at a time? Searching for groups still works today.