What was your experience when you last tried to get Google to archive this ng?

Is it futile?

Has anyone here actually *tried* to get Google to "archive" this Usenet
newsgroup?

What works and what doesn't work in that process?

I remember, in my distant memory, statement to the ilk of:
a. Google doesn't archive "alt" newsgroups
b. But yes, they do, e.g., http://tinyurl.com/alt-home-repair
....
c. Then people say they don't archive alt "computer" newsgroups
d. But, yes, they do, e.g., http://tinyurl.com/alt-os-linux
....
e. But then they say Google doesn't archive alt "microsoft" newsgroups
f. Which may be true (dunno - I haven't tested them all)

Along the same lines, I seem to remember that Google *does* take requests
to archive newsgroups, but most of my recollection is that people say that
there is a "fat chance" that they'll archive "this" particular newsgroup.

That may be true. That might not be true.
Does anyone really know for sure?

*That is, has anyone here actually tried to get Google to archive this ng?*

This thread asks this basic question of the people who actually tried:
Q: What was your experience when you tried to get Google to archive this ng?

Arlen Holder wrote:
Is it futile?

Has anyone here actually *tried* to get Google to "archive" this Usenet
newsgroup?

What's the email address of the Google Groups "administrator" ???

Paul

On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 15:50:55 -0400, Paul wrote:

What's the email address of the Google Groups "administrator" ???

Hi Paul,

I think I understand the sarcasm, where, I must say, I had to get Google to
fix a private path on their maps, where I spent hours calling them up all
to no avail - but - I finally found a way where there are "Google
Volunteers" who actually do work with Google to fix maps (e.g., to not
route on private reads, where where I live, all the roads are private).

So, while "talking" to someone at Google is nearly impossible, and finding
their email is just as impossible - there still "might" be a way.

BTW, while I was googling to see if there is an answer to your question, I
did run into this picture of the "Usenet archives", which is historic:
https://ianmilligan.ca/2013/03/06/exploring-the-usenet-archive-early-thoughts/
Specifically:
https://ia800502.us.archive.org/14/items/utzoo-wiseman-usenet-archive/davidwiseman-tapes.jpg

What was interesting in that search for your answer, is that a few other
"potential" archives did pop up, other than Google, e.g.,

The Usenet Archive Company
https://www.crunchbase.com/organizat...usenet-archive

All Usenet Archives (old)
https://livinginternet.com/u/uu_arch.htm

FTP Usenet Archives (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/)
ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/

But, alas, no email address yet!

Paul wrote:
Arlen Holder wrote:
Is it futile?

Has anyone here actually *tried* to get Google to "archive" this Usenet
newsgroup?

What's the email address of the Google Groups "administrator" ???

Ignoring the rethorical part, it *should* be:



or/and



or/and even

legroups (Yuk!)

But knowing how much Google cares about, standards, conventions, its
users, etc., it clearly is:



I've just sent the OP's request to the latter address.

On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 20:54:13 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 15:50:55 -0400, Paul wrote:

What's the email address of the Google Groups "administrator" ???

Hi Paul,

I think I understand the sarcasm, where, I must say, I had to get Google to
fix a private path on their maps, where I spent hours calling them up all
to no avail - but - I finally found a way where there are "Google
Volunteers" who actually do work with Google to fix maps (e.g., to not
route on private reads, where where I live, all the roads are private).

Every Google map has a "Send feedback" link on it, so a few years ago
when I discovered that about 140 miles of a particular US highway was
inexplicably missing from the map, I provided feedback. It took quite a
while, perhaps 6 months or so, but they fixed it and they sent me a note
telling me that they had done so.

I spent all of about 60 seconds providing that feedback. It never
occurred to me that I could have spent hours calling them.

In article , Char Jackson
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 20:54:13 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder
wrote:
I think I understand the sarcasm, where, I must say, I had to get Google to
fix a private path on their maps, where I spent hours calling them up all
to no avail - but - I finally found a way where there are "Google
Volunteers" who actually do work with Google to fix maps (e.g., to not
route on private reads, where where I live, all the roads are private).

Every Google map has a "Send feedback" link on it, so a few years ago
when I discovered that about 140 miles of a particular US highway was
inexplicably missing from the map, I provided feedback. It took quite a
while, perhaps 6 months or so, but they fixed it and they sent me a note
telling me that they had done so.

they do need to verify it, but it's usually much shorter than 6 months.

I spent all of about 60 seconds providing that feedback. It never
occurred to me that I could have spent hours calling them.

he always chooses the least efficient method possible.

On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 21:21:19 -0400, nospam wrote:

he always chooses the least efficient method possible.

As always, nospam, you *just guess* at everything, which is why your track
record is worse than the monkey's at figuring out under which box are the
bananas.

Some day, you'll add actual on-topic additional added value to a Usenet
conversation, but, apparently, not today.

On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 20:14:36 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:

Every Google map has a "Send feedback" link on it, so a few years ago
when I discovered that about 140 miles of a particular US highway was
inexplicably missing from the map, I provided feedback. It took quite a
while, perhaps 6 months or so, but they fixed it and they sent me a note
telling me that they had done so.

I spent all of about 60 seconds providing that feedback. It never
occurred to me that I could have spent hours calling them.

Your apparently gleefully claimed genius is not lost on us, where you are
clearly self-assessed at being apparently far more efficient than I was.

I concede to your self-claimed genius, as I never claim that (I simply
claim intelligence and effort and attention to detail, but not your avowed
genius, nor the self-proclaimed genius of nospam, and Wolf K.)

Hence, I accede to your claims of genius which far surpass those of mine.

It turns out that I arrived at the same conclusion that you did, but after
trying to talk to google in Mountainview over the phone first (I have quite
a few friends who work there). Also I live relatively near Google HQ so I
was prepared to visit them in the flesh even to get my point across.

In the end, my task was perhaps greater than yours in that the local county
GIS maps were also wrong, so I had to have them change it, which itself
dominoed to the maps from NavTech and OSM maps, all of which took a long
time to change (about a year or two, as I recall).

Every map change was done by phone except Google's maps, where I started at
the lowest level (the tax assessor's office which archives the deeds), and
then moved on upward, where the fact that the county GIS maps were changed
was partly what the "google volunteer" used to bolster the argument he had
with whomever he was dealing with at Google.

I'm not sure of the exact elapsed time for Google to fix their routing
system, but I think it was on the order of a month (it's documented in the
Usenet record somewhere in gory detail), where Google followed a logic that
I had to agree with, which was:

a. If it's private, they remove it from the "directions"
b. But there is a single exception

That is, they won't route through the private road if the starting or
ending point isn't "on" the private road.

However, that single exception is that they will route along the private
road if the connection is to or from an address "on" the private road.

It was a bit more complex in that some of the private "roads" were mere
dirt paths, so we had to deal with bike and pedestrian routing also.

In the end, I accede to your gleefully claimed genius - but the fact is
that we both achieved our end goals nonetheless.

On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 04:15:55 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 20:14:36 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:

Every Google map has a "Send feedback" link on it, so a few years ago
when I discovered that about 140 miles of a particular US highway was
inexplicably missing from the map, I provided feedback. It took quite a
while, perhaps 6 months or so, but they fixed it and they sent me a note
telling me that they had done so.

I spent all of about 60 seconds providing that feedback. It never
occurred to me that I could have spent hours calling them.

Your apparently gleefully claimed genius is not lost on us, where you are
clearly self-assessed at being apparently far more efficient than I was.

Who is "us"? Are you still hearing voices? Do they have names?

On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 21:21:19 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Char Jackson
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 20:54:13 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder
wrote:
I think I understand the sarcasm, where, I must say, I had to get Google to
fix a private path on their maps, where I spent hours calling them up all
to no avail - but - I finally found a way where there are "Google
Volunteers" who actually do work with Google to fix maps (e.g., to not
route on private reads, where where I live, all the roads are private).

Every Google map has a "Send feedback" link on it, so a few years ago
when I discovered that about 140 miles of a particular US highway was
inexplicably missing from the map, I provided feedback. It took quite a
while, perhaps 6 months or so, but they fixed it and they sent me a note
telling me that they had done so.

they do need to verify it, but it's usually much shorter than 6 months.

In Google's defense, the missing highway was in Kansas. That might have
hurt its priority.

I spent all of about 60 seconds providing that feedback. It never
occurred to me that I could have spent hours calling them.

he always chooses the least efficient method possible.

I'm noticing that, as well.

On 24 Jun 2018 21:15:00 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

I've just sent the OP's request to the latter address.

Frank, Paul, Char Jackson, etc.,

A thread that has a hard-to-answer question should have zero answers if
nobody knows the answer. This isn't a chit-chat thread. It's a Q&A thread.

I can't tell who is serious & who is joking sometimes, but I'm serious.

Char Jackson complained ad infinitum about the weather (actually about the
choice of web-searchable archive for this newsgroup) - so all I'm doing
here is asking for assistance in solving this admittedly difficult problem.

Jokes aren't going to help to solve this difficult problem.

I personally have zero experience in getting Google to archive a newsgroup.
I don't think many of you do either - so if all you can contribute are
jokes, then please joke elsewhere because your jokes are childishly
unhelpful.

Everything I ask has a strategic intent - where that intent is always
patently obvious.

If we're going to get a reasonable web-searchable free archive for this
newsgroup, we're going to have to HELP EACH OTHER ... not joke like little
fifth-grade children.

In article , Arlen Holder
wrote:

Everything I ask has a strategic intent - where that intent is always
patently obvious.

true, except it's not what you claim it to be.

On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 19:19:10 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder
wrote:

On 24 Jun 2018 21:15:00 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

I've just sent the OP's request to the latter address.

Frank, Paul, Char Jackson, etc.,

A thread that has a hard-to-answer question should have zero answers if
nobody knows the answer. This isn't a chit-chat thread. It's a Q&A thread.

It's a Usenet thread. Anyone can post to it and the topic of the thread
can drift uncontrollably. It isn't necessarily what you want it to be.
It's not your thread.

I can't tell who is serious & who is joking sometimes, but I'm serious.

Take comfort knowing that Sheldon Cooper (Big Bang Theory) has the same
problem. You are not alone.

Char Jackson complained ad infinitum about the weather (actually about the
choice of web-searchable archive for this newsgroup) - so all I'm doing
here is asking for assistance in solving this admittedly difficult problem.

*shrug* You're pretty set on a web-based solution so you ignored other
options. You call it complaining.

Jokes aren't going to help to solve this difficult problem.

I personally have zero experience in getting Google to archive a newsgroup.
I don't think many of you do either - so if all you can contribute are
jokes, then please joke elsewhere because your jokes are childishly
unhelpful.

Naw, jokes are always welcome.

Everything I ask has a strategic intent - where that intent is always
patently obvious.

If we're going to get a reasonable web-searchable free archive for this
newsgroup, we're going to have to HELP EACH OTHER ... not joke like little
fifth-grade children.

You need to decide if you're going to continue to shout at Google about
archiving a new group or whether you're actually going to do something
about it.

Arlen Holder wrote:
On 24 Jun 2018 21:15:00 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

I've just sent the OP's request to the latter address.

Frank, Paul, Char Jackson, etc.,

A thread that has a hard-to-answer question should have zero answers if
nobody knows the answer. This isn't a chit-chat thread. It's a Q&A thread.

I can't tell who is serious & who is joking sometimes, but I'm serious.

Humour can also be a way of communicating things. Given your
condition, it's best not to engage in - i.e. also not respond to -
posts/responses where humour is used.

Char Jackson complained ad infinitum about the weather (actually about the
choice of web-searchable archive for this newsgroup) - so all I'm doing
here is asking for assistance in solving this admittedly difficult problem.

Nope he didn't (complain ...)! He just doesn't share your definition
of the/your 'problem', nor the problem itself. That's his perogative.
That is what I meant by you attacking the messenger when - for some
reason - you don't like the message.

Jokes aren't going to help to solve this difficult problem.

It's not a difficult problem. It's not even a problem. *You* *make* it
a problem, but it's *your* problem, not anybody else's. As I said
before, Usenet does not exist to please you.

I personally have zero experience in getting Google to archive a newsgroup.
I don't think many of you do either - so if all you can contribute are
jokes, then please joke elsewhere because your jokes are childishly
unhelpful.

We will use humour as we see fit. There *is* no 'elsewhere'. This is
not your - or our - newsgroup/thread. It's Usenet, period. Everyone can
have their say and your killfile is your friend.

FWIW, my sarcasm was directed towards Google being the bad/evil
netizen that they are.

Everything I ask has a strategic intent - where that intent is always
patently obvious.

How shall I put this nicely?

Don't be an obnoxious pompous ****! Nobody is buying into your
grandstanding. Nobody ever did and nobody ever will. At best people will
ignore it or/and you.

If we're going to get a reasonable web-searchable free archive for this
newsgroup, we're going to have to HELP EACH OTHER ... not joke like little
fifth-grade children.

In this context, there *is* no 'we'! There's only *you* who wants
something. Mot (all?) others - i.e. the real 'we' - couldn't care less,
because there are already several other solutions.

On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 15:32:01 -0400, nospam wrote:

true, except it's not what you claim it to be.

Someday, nospam, you're going to be able to add on-topic value to a thread.

But apparently not today.