How does one (used to) set up peering with googlegroups ?

[Spiros Bousbouras]

Hopefully peering with googlegroups will be a thing of the past after
the end of today but I'm still curious about this. Newsservers
generally have a web page with information on what you should do to set
up peering with them. Does googlegroups have (or used to have) anything
similar or was all peering done with "behind closed doors" arrangements ?

[The Doctor]

Post by Spiros Bousbouras
Hopefully peering with googlegroups will be a thing of the past after
the end of today but I'm still curious about this. Newsservers
generally have a web page with information on what you should do to set
up peering with them. Does googlegroups have (or used to have) anything
similar or was all peering done with "behind closed doors" arrangements ?
--
vlaho.ninja/menu

It died at 10 a.m. PST

[D]

Post by The Doctor

Post by Spiros Bousbouras
Hopefully peering with googlegroups will be a thing of the past after
the end of today but I'm still curious about this. Newsservers
generally have a web page with information on what you should do to set
up peering with them. Does googlegroups have (or used to have) anything
similar or was all peering done with "behind closed doors" arrangements ?
--
vlaho.ninja/menu

It died at 10 a.m. PST

quoting . . .

Post by The Doctor
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
Subject: Re: ding dong the wicked witch . . . ?
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 21:42:02 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: BWH Usenet Archive (https://usenet.blueworldhosting.com)

snip
didn't see raw message headers with injection timestamp but if this
really is the final article ever posted via google groups, or other
article(s) which might share that prestigious accolade of being the
last from google groups, then it's probably of interest to everyone

[The Doctor]

Post by Spiros Bousbouras
Hopefully peering with googlegroups will be a thing of the past after
the end of today but I'm still curious about this. Newsservers
generally have a web page with information on what you should do to set
up peering with them. Does googlegroups have (or used to have) anything
similar or was all peering done with "behind closed doors" arrangements ?

Oh yea, I forgot that Google USENET support is shutting down today. Nice :)
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

YAY!

[Grant Taylor]

Post by Spiros Bousbouras
Hopefully peering with googlegroups will be a thing of the past
after the end of today but I'm still curious about this. Newsservers
generally have a web page with information on what you should do to
set up peering with them. Does googlegroups have (or used to have)
anything similar or was all peering done with "behind closed doors"
arrangements ?

Google had standard NNTP peering with select servers just like my server
has with other servers.

I don't know if Google ever /added/ any peers after acquiring Dejanews
or if they simply kept those peers all along.

Politically Google was definitely not a normal peer with anyone type of
peer. Technically, they were the same as all other NNTP peers.

[Spiros Bousbouras]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 21:53:07 -0600

Post by Grant Taylor

Post by Spiros Bousbouras
Hopefully peering with googlegroups will be a thing of the past
after the end of today but I'm still curious about this. Newsservers
generally have a web page with information on what you should do to
set up peering with them. Does googlegroups have (or used to have)
anything similar or was all peering done with "behind closed doors"
arrangements ?

Google had standard NNTP peering with select servers just like my server
has with other servers.
I don't know if Google ever /added/ any peers after acquiring Dejanews
or if they simply kept those peers all along.
Politically Google was definitely not a normal peer with anyone type of
peer. Technically, they were the same as all other NNTP peers.

I was asking about the political (social may be a better term) rather than
the technical. I certainly wasn't thinking that any special protocols were in
place to do peering with googlegroups. So for example did someone from within
Google contact at some point in time certain newsserver administrators to
indicate that they wanted to set up peering and then they took it from there?

[Grant Taylor]

Post by Spiros Bousbouras
I was asking about the political (social may be a better term)
rather than the technical. I certainly wasn't thinking that any
special protocols were in place to do peering with googlegroups.

Ah.

Post by Spiros Bousbouras
So for example did someone from within Google contact at some point
in time certain newsserver administrators to indicate that they wanted
to set up peering and then they took it from there?

I don't know who initiated the peering. It was a very long time ago in
computer time and even longer ago in Google time.

It may have been Google reaching out to other peers. Or it may have
been other peers reaching out to Google. I suspect it was some of both.

My opinion is that Google largely let their Usenet interaction /
infrastructure bit-rot on the vine. Any attempt I had with Google
employees working on it left me quite disappointed.

[D]

Post by Grant Taylor

Post by Spiros Bousbouras
I was asking about the political (social may be a better term)
rather than the technical. I certainly wasn't thinking that any
special protocols were in place to do peering with googlegroups.

Ah.

Post by Spiros Bousbouras
So for example did someone from within Google contact at some point
in time certain newsserver administrators to indicate that they wanted
to set up peering and then they took it from there?

I don't know who initiated the peering. It was a very long time ago in
computer time and even longer ago in Google time.
It may have been Google reaching out to other peers. Or it may have
been other peers reaching out to Google. I suspect it was some of both.
My opinion is that Google largely let their Usenet interaction /
infrastructure bit-rot on the vine. Any attempt I had with Google
employees working on it left me quite disappointed.

as an older guy and life-long outsider to the system, the world has
always functioned under the rubric umbrella of compartmentalization
and need to know, never divulging anything to anyone outside of the
loop without careful planning and orchestrated media damage control

[Todd M. McComb]

Post by Grant Taylor
I don't know who initiated the peering. It was a very long time
ago in computer time and even longer ago in Google time.

Google inherited the Dejanews peerings. There was also a meeting,
where Russ & I sat at Google HQ & talked to the team lead of the
new "Groups" service -- about things like control messages, etc.
We secured their agreement on some things, which is why things
managed to work as well as they did for a while, in terms of fitting
into Usenet. It was not a meeting I was all that happy with at the
time, but it was "OK." I don't even remember what year this was.

Post by Grant Taylor
My opinion is that Google largely let their Usenet interaction /
infrastructure bit-rot on the vine.

Yes. Or put another way, they attempted to swallow us whole, but
eventually had to spit us back out.

Anyway, I only tend to skim this group, so sorry if I miss an
inquiry....

[Todd M. McComb]

Post by Todd M. McComb
Google inherited the Dejanews peerings.

Now that I posted that, I realize my memory isn't so clear on this
part either. Actually, and I may be wrong, I think that Google
first bought another "news" startup -- and that's where the guy we
met with came from -- and then Deja soon after. Either way, they
had existing peering.

(To state the obvious, we were NDA'd like crazy for that meeting.
I'm probably breaking it now!)

[Kerr Avon]

Post by Todd M. McComb
Google inherited the Dejanews peerings.

Now that I posted that, I realize my memory isn't so clear on this part
either. Actually, and I may be wrong, I think that Google first bought
another "news" startup -- and that's where the guy we met with came from
-- and then Deja soon after. Either way, they had existing peering.
(To state the obvious, we were NDA'd like crazy for that meeting. I'm
probably breaking it now!)

:)

Fascinating to read some of the history from those involved in it. Thanks
for sharing.

It's certainly changing times for Usenet and while spammers have not
totally gone from the scene (by any measure) it will be interesting to see
if this subsidence in spam actually aids interest / adoption in Usenet as
a space to chat and exchange ideas in good old plain text again :)

I remain hopeful, and it's nice to see others still active in Usenet doing
the same :)

[candycanearter07]

Post by Kerr Avon

Post by Todd M. McComb
Google inherited the Dejanews peerings.

Now that I posted that, I realize my memory isn't so clear on this part
either. Actually, and I may be wrong, I think that Google first bought
another "news" startup -- and that's where the guy we met with came from
-- and then Deja soon after. Either way, they had existing peering.
(To state the obvious, we were NDA'd like crazy for that meeting. I'm
probably breaking it now!)

:)
Fascinating to read some of the history from those involved in it. Thanks
for sharing.
It's certainly changing times for Usenet and while spammers have not
totally gone from the scene (by any measure) it will be interesting to see
if this subsidence in spam actually aids interest / adoption in Usenet as
a space to chat and exchange ideas in good old plain text again :)
I remain hopeful, and it's nice to see others still active in Usenet doing
the same :)

Cheers to that!

[rek2 hispagatos]

Post by candycanearter07

Post by Kerr Avon

Post by Todd M. McComb
Google inherited the Dejanews peerings.

Now that I posted that, I realize my memory isn't so clear on this part
either. Actually, and I may be wrong, I think that Google first bought
another "news" startup -- and that's where the guy we met with came from
-- and then Deja soon after. Either way, they had existing peering.
(To state the obvious, we were NDA'd like crazy for that meeting. I'm
probably breaking it now!)

:)
Fascinating to read some of the history from those involved in it. Thanks
for sharing.
It's certainly changing times for Usenet and while spammers have not
totally gone from the scene (by any measure) it will be interesting to see
if this subsidence in spam actually aids interest / adoption in Usenet as
a space to chat and exchange ideas in good old plain text again :)
I remain hopeful, and it's nice to see others still active in Usenet doing
the same :)

Cheers to that!

Cheers and +1

[Todd M. McComb]

... it will be interesting to see if this subsidence in spam
actually aids interest / adoption in Usenet as a space to chat and
exchange ideas in good old plain text again :)

Whether spam per se changes very much -- aside from the recent
explosion -- there's more likely to be recognition that Usenet is
something different, and not only e.g. a part of Google. So I
think that may be an opportunity, bringing some clarity.

[Spiros Bousbouras]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 18:46:30 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Todd M. McComb

Post by Grant Taylor
My opinion is that Google largely let their Usenet interaction /
infrastructure bit-rot on the vine.

Yes. Or put another way, they attempted to swallow us whole, but
eventually had to spit us back out.

Who's "us" ?

[Todd M. McComb]

Post by Spiros Bousbouras
Who's "us" ?

Usenet... the prior network, all of us still here.

[Spiros Bousbouras]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 07:59:28 -0600

Post by Grant Taylor

Post by Spiros Bousbouras
So for example did someone from within Google contact at some point
in time certain newsserver administrators to indicate that they wanted
to set up peering and then they took it from there?

I don't know who initiated the peering. It was a very long time ago in
computer time and even longer ago in Google time.
It may have been Google reaching out to other peers. Or it may have
been other peers reaching out to Google. I suspect it was some of both.
My opinion is that Google largely let their Usenet interaction /
infrastructure bit-rot on the vine. Any attempt I had with Google
employees working on it left me quite disappointed.

What I find striking about the whole affair is how the peers were willing
to continue the peering despite all the spam. When I read peering policies
it is very common that they specify that the prospective peers must operate
antispam measures. Google clearly did not operate any but the peering
continued. I wonder if Google paid money to some/all their peers.

[Andy Burns]

Post by Spiros Bousbouras
What I find striking about the whole affair is how the peers were willing
to continue the peering despite all the spam.

Out of curiosity, I've logged on to groups.google.com today, and it's
pure tumbleweed in there, didn't see any goggle group that was a usenet
group with any new messages from today. and only saw a single email
list that had one new message.

If it wasn't for the archive, they might as well turn off posting to
their own groups/lists, as it seems they haven't got any users left.

[John Levine]

Post by Andy Burns
If it wasn't for the archive, they might as well turn off posting to
their own groups/lists, as it seems they haven't got any users left.

Only part of groups peered with usenet. There are plenty of live
groups that are private discussion lists. I'm on a few of them.

I'm not surprised that the ex-usenet groups are dead. Anyone who
cared has moved somewhere else that still peers.

[Andy Burns]

Post by John Levine
Only part of groups peered with usenet. There are plenty of live
groups that are private discussion lists. I'm on a few of them.
I'm not surprised that the ex-usenet groups are dead. Anyone who
cared has moved somewhere else that still peers.

I've never used the non-usenet parts of googlegroups, I see hundreds of
thousands of "groups" by searching for names containing a single letter
"a" or "t", yet 99% of them say no new traffic in last 30 days, some
have never had any messages ...

For some usenet groups there are people who compile monthly/yearly stats
of prolific posters, until recently over half the users in some groups
were via googlegroups.

I found googlegroups unbearable to use for sending, I would only do so
if I wanted to reply to an ancient message that had aged-out from my
thunderbird ...

[Grant Taylor]

Post by Spiros Bousbouras
What I find striking about the whole affair is how the peers
were willing to continue the peering despite all the spam. When I
read peering policies it is very common that they specify that the
prospective peers must operate antispam measures. Google clearly did
not operate any but the peering continued. I wonder if Google paid
money to some/all their peers.

Google is one of those entities that almost everybody is afraid of going
up against. This means that most people were unwilling to depeer (not
that they need to any more) or filter email from Google, because Google!

Google really enjoyed their small startup position competing with Yahoo
and Microsoft's offering at the time. Lots of people wanted to favor
Google if for nothing other than David vs Goliath support for the little
guy. Now Google is Goliath and many people are scared to go against Google.

[John]

Post by Grant Taylor

Post by Spiros Bousbouras
What I find striking about the whole affair is how the peers were
willing to continue the peering despite all the spam. When I read
peering policies it is very common that they specify that the
prospective peers must operate antispam measures. Google clearly did
not operate any but the peering continued. I wonder if Google paid
money to some/all their peers.

Google is one of those entities that almost everybody is afraid of
going up against. This means that most people were unwilling to
depeer (not that they need to any more) or filter email from Google,
because Google!
Google really enjoyed their small startup position competing with
Yahoo and Microsoft's offering at the time. Lots of people wanted to
favor Google if for nothing other than David vs Goliath support for
the little guy. Now Google is Goliath and many people are scared to
go against Google.

Gmail was also so far in advance of all other free webmail when it came
out, it wasn't even a competition. The interface was clean and fast, but
most importantly you got *so much storage*, at a time when most free
accounts had a few pitiful megabytes.

[Grant Taylor]

Post by John
Gmail was also so far in advance of all other free webmail when it came
out, it wasn't even a competition. The interface was clean and fast,

It didn't take much to be ahead of the other web mail interfaces then.

I still don't think it takes much to be ahead of web mail interfaces.

I think the average client side MTA from the '90s still VASTLY
outperforms all web mail interfaces nearly 30 years later.

Post by John
but most importantly you gotso much storage, at a time when most free
accounts had a few pitiful megabytes.

I don't care how much storage there is to bribe someone if the interface
sucks and is missing many features that I use every day.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Grant Taylor

Post by Spiros Bousbouras
What I find striking about the whole affair is how the peers
were willing to continue the peering despite all the spam. When I
read peering policies it is very common that they specify that the
prospective peers must operate antispam measures. Google clearly did
not operate any but the peering continued. I wonder if Google paid
money to some/all their peers.

Google is one of those entities that almost everybody is afraid of going
up against. This means that most people were unwilling to depeer (not
that they need to any more) or filter email from Google, because Google!

How does that work? You are operating SpamAssasin as an email abuse
countermeasure and you tell it NOT to filter any email originating from
Gmail because you are afraid of reprisals from Google?

The recent massive Usenet abuse from Google Groups finally made the
public aware of something Google had been failing to do for years, run a
Usenet site like a good actor. It caused Google embarassment in front of
a public that for the most part of ignorant of the existence of Usenet.

I must have missed the news that the Google assasination squad took out
any of the people that we know.

Post by Grant Taylor
Google really enjoyed their small startup position competing with Yahoo
and Microsoft's offering at the time. Lots of people wanted to favor
Google if for nothing other than David vs Goliath support for the little
guy. Now Google is Goliath and many people are scared to go against Google.

I don't recall what search Microsoft offered. Yahoo was fantastic
because they were offering a directory service edited by human beings.

In olden days before the Web, we had the Gopher protocol which was... a
high quality directory service edited by human beings. ftp sites were
forced to make an attempt at logical organization because finding the
file you needed to download was difficult enough. The Web didn't
require a directory to function so too many Web sites were set up without
logical structure. That's where search engines come in, but indexing
doesn't impose structure.

Google search doesn't exactly make it easy to find what you need. I'd
rather start with a directory but Google made those go away. Google's
advertising model appears to be the more bad hits we present, the more
ads we serve. It's a negative incentive.

[D]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Grant Taylor

Post by Spiros Bousbouras
What I find striking about the whole affair is how the peers
were willing to continue the peering despite all the spam. When I
read peering policies it is very common that they specify that the
prospective peers must operate antispam measures. Google clearly did
not operate any but the peering continued. I wonder if Google paid
money to some/all their peers.

Google is one of those entities that almost everybody is afraid of going
up against. This means that most people were unwilling to depeer (not
that they need to any more) or filter email from Google, because Google!

How does that work? You are operating SpamAssasin as an email abuse
countermeasure and you tell it NOT to filter any email originating from
Gmail because you are afraid of reprisals from Google?
The recent massive Usenet abuse from Google Groups finally made the
public aware of something Google had been failing to do for years, run a
Usenet site like a good actor. It caused Google embarassment in front of
a public that for the most part of ignorant of the existence of Usenet.
I must have missed the news that the Google assasination squad took out
any of the people that we know.

Post by Grant Taylor
Google really enjoyed their small startup position competing with Yahoo
and Microsoft's offering at the time. Lots of people wanted to favor
Google if for nothing other than David vs Goliath support for the little
guy. Now Google is Goliath and many people are scared to go against Google.

I don't recall what search Microsoft offered. Yahoo was fantastic
because they were offering a directory service edited by human beings.
In olden days before the Web, we had the Gopher protocol which was... a
high quality directory service edited by human beings. ftp sites were
forced to make an attempt at logical organization because finding the
file you needed to download was difficult enough. The Web didn't
require a directory to function so too many Web sites were set up without
logical structure. That's where search engines come in, but indexing
doesn't impose structure.
Google search doesn't exactly make it easy to find what you need. I'd
rather start with a directory but Google made those go away. Google's
advertising model appears to be the more bad hits we present, the more
ads we serve. It's a negative incentive.

been using duckduckgo exclusively since 2012 (default search for tor browser);
altavista https://web.archive.org/web/19961022174810/http://www.altavista.com/
worked great while it lasted; no one can actually "go against" the system, but
avoiding them is the law of the jungle, get too close and that's all she wrote

[Grant Taylor]

Post by D
been using duckduckgo exclusively since 2012 (default search for tor browser);

I think that DDG has also gone down hill. They are starting to exhibit
the same problems I had with Google.

I have this funny thing, when I search for something I expect the words
that are in my search to be in the page that the results link to. Or at
least the cached copy as of when the page was crawled.

I would rather get a "we didn't find any pages with all the search
terms" than bull shit that doesn't contain my search terms or so far
from them that it's not even remotely funny.

Post by D
altavista ... worked great while it lasted;

I've heard good things about AltaVista. I don't remember using them. I
do remember using WebCrawler and was happy enough with them until Google
came along 20 years ago.

Post by D
no one can actually "go against" the system, but avoiding them is

I've threatened to write my own search engine. I'd probably choose a
name with "grep" in it.

[D]

Post by Grant Taylor

Post by D
been using duckduckgo exclusively since 2012 (default search for tor browser);

I think that DDG has also gone down hill. They are starting to exhibit
the same problems I had with Google.
I have this funny thing, when I search for something I expect the words
that are in my search to be in the page that the results link to. Or at
least the cached copy as of when the page was crawled.
I would rather get a "we didn't find any pages with all the search
terms" than bull shit that doesn't contain my search terms or so far
from them that it's not even remotely funny.

boolean logic vs. commercial advertising . . . same thing happened to
newspapers, magazines, radio, and especially television; the internet
became popular, so it too became saturated with garish commercial ads;
afaict duckduckgo still works fine for what i've usually searched for

Post by Grant Taylor

Post by D
altavista ... worked great while it lasted;

I've heard good things about AltaVista. I don't remember using them. I
do remember using WebCrawler and was happy enough with them until Google
came along 20 years ago.

at first, altavista clearly favored boolean logic for search results,
but it's growing popularity attracted the usual wall street piranhas

Post by Grant Taylor

Post by D
no one can actually "go against" the system, but avoiding them is

I've threatened to write my own search engine. I'd probably choose a
name with "grep" in it.

unfamiliar... had to google it:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=grep

Post by Grant Taylor
...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grep

Post by Grant Taylor
grep is a command-line utility for searching plain-text data sets for lines
that match a regular expression. Its name comes from the ed command g/re/p
(global / regular expression search / and print), which has the same effect.
[3][4] grep was originally developed for the Unix operating system, but
later available for all Unix-like systems and some others such as OS-9.[5]

[end quote]

[Grant Taylor]

Post by Adam H. Kerman
How does that work? You are operating SpamAssasin as an email abuse
countermeasure and you tell it NOT to filter any email originating
from Gmail because you are afraid of reprisals from Google?

There are people that do that.

There are also a lot of people that will block list a small mom & pop
ISP that would never dare to block Google. What's really sad is that
most mom & pop ISPs actually care a LOT more than Google has ever cared;
both about quality of their service and making sure that their user base
isn't doing something unfavorable.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
The recent massive Usenet abuse from Google Groups finally made the
public aware of something Google had been failing to do for years,
run a Usenet site like a good actor. It caused Google embarassment in
front of a public that for the most part of ignorant of the existence
of Usenet.

I don't think that it did cause any embarrassment for Google. You can't
be embarrassed by something if you don't care about it.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
I must have missed the news that the Google assasination squad took
out any of the people that we know.

?

Post by Adam H. Kerman
I don't recall what search Microsoft offered. Yahoo was fantastic
because they were offering a directory service edited by human beings.

Yahoo started as a hand curated directory but switched away from that by
the early '00s.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
In olden days before the Web, we had the Gopher protocol which
was... a high quality directory service edited by human beings. ftp
sites were forced to make an attempt at logical organization because
finding the file you needed to download was difficult enough. The Web
didn't require a directory to function so too many Web sites were set
up without logical structure. That's where search engines come in,
but indexing doesn't impose structure.

I'd argue that sites should still try to provide a logical layout.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Google search doesn't exactly make it easy to find what you need. I'd
rather start with a directory but Google made those go away. Google's
advertising model appears to be the more bad hits we present, the
more ads we serve. It's a negative incentive.

I cuss at Google less now that I avoid them when I can reasonably do so.

[Spiros Bousbouras]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 21:14:24 -0600

Post by Grant Taylor

Post by Adam H. Kerman
The recent massive Usenet abuse from Google Groups finally made the
public aware of something Google had been failing to do for years,
run a Usenet site like a good actor. It caused Google embarassment in
front of a public that for the most part of ignorant of the existence
of Usenet.

I don't think that it did cause any embarrassment for Google. You can't
be embarrassed by something if you don't care about it.

Indeed. Google probably wouldn't care much if someone depeered them which
contradicts what you wrote earlier :

Google is one of those entities that almost everybody is afraid of going
up against. This means that most people were unwilling to depeer (not
that they need to any more) or filter email from Google, because Google!

Filtering email is a different discussion but why anyone would be afraid of
depeering googlegroups ? The only practical consideration was that enough
legitimate people were posting through googlegroups. But this still doesn't
justify directly peering with them. A news admin might refrain from
filtering googlegroups but still not want the bad image of directly peering
with what was by far the greatest source of spam on usenet.

[candycanearter07]

Post by Grant Taylor

Post by Adam H. Kerman
How does that work? You are operating SpamAssasin as an email abuse
countermeasure and you tell it NOT to filter any email originating
from Gmail because you are afraid of reprisals from Google?

There are people that do that.
There are also a lot of people that will block list a small mom & pop
ISP that would never dare to block Google. What's really sad is that
most mom & pop ISPs actually care a LOT more than Google has ever cared;
both about quality of their service and making sure that their user base
isn't doing something unfavorable.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
The recent massive Usenet abuse from Google Groups finally made the
public aware of something Google had been failing to do for years,
run a Usenet site like a good actor. It caused Google embarassment in
front of a public that for the most part of ignorant of the existence
of Usenet.

I don't think that it did cause any embarrassment for Google. You can't
be embarrassed by something if you don't care about it.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
I must have missed the news that the Google assasination squad took
out any of the people that we know.

?

Post by Adam H. Kerman
I don't recall what search Microsoft offered. Yahoo was fantastic
because they were offering a directory service edited by human beings.

Yahoo started as a hand curated directory but switched away from that by
the early '00s.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
In olden days before the Web, we had the Gopher protocol which
was... a high quality directory service edited by human beings. ftp
sites were forced to make an attempt at logical organization because
finding the file you needed to download was difficult enough. The Web
didn't require a directory to function so too many Web sites were set
up without logical structure. That's where search engines come in,
but indexing doesn't impose structure.

I'd argue that sites should still try to provide a logical layout.

Agreed.
I'd also add that same-site navigation (where the url is the same and
some js controls the interface) is the WORST because its always so slow
and you can't just bookmark the spot you want to access because its all
js.

Post by Grant Taylor

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Google search doesn't exactly make it easy to find what you need. I'd
rather start with a directory but Google made those go away. Google's
advertising model appears to be the more bad hits we present, the
more ads we serve. It's a negative incentive.

I cuss at Google less now that I avoid them when I can reasonably do so.

Same, I use DDG. Still kinda stuck on gmail tho.