On 12/14/23 09:11, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> This old form of URL apparently still works for some (only old?)
> articles.
>
> But it does not work for new articles. For example it does not work
> (gives "You are not a member of any groups yet") for your article (the
> one I am responding to), while that article *is* in Google Groups (I
> just checked).

I wonder if the indexing for that was performed by DeJa and Google
simply brought it forward but didn't continue creating said index.

The different behavior for articles posted at different times tends to
support Google being very inconsistent in what they do.

--
Grant. . . .

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
> On 12/14/23 09:11, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > This old form of URL apparently still works for some (only old?)
> > articles.
> >
> > But it does not work for new articles. For example it does not work
> > (gives "You are not a member of any groups yet") for your article (the
> > one I am responding to), while that article *is* in Google Groups (I
> > just checked).
>
> I wonder if the indexing for that was performed by DeJa and Google
> simply brought it forward but didn't continue creating said index.

Well, according to my notes, the old form URL [1] worked at least upto
April 2008 (and probably as late as November 2018), so way after Google
bought Deja. So there was a time where Google did maintain that index.

> The different behavior for articles posted at different times tends to
> support Google being very inconsistent in what they do.

Indeed. For example this still finds (multiple occurences of) your
article (assuming logged into a Google account):

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/messageidAulf6be$aa6@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>

So the general form is:

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/messageidAMID>

Where MID is the message-id without any delimiters.

So yes, Google made a royal mess of it and is still doing so! :-(

[1] <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=MID&dmode=source>

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote

>> Absolutely I agree. Hence, there's likely more to it, using Occam's
>> Razor. However, I'm not privy to the secret decoder ring that explains
>> their MO.
>
> My understanding of Occam's Razor + parsimony is that the simplest
> explanation is the most likely explanation and we don't really need any
> other explanation. To whit, I maintain that the simplest and thus most
> likely explanation is that multiple actors are simply letting their spam
> publishing software go Brrrrr and we're suffering because of their actions.

Understood. The simplest motive is they're spamming because they can.

>> Rest assured, I have done that about twenty times on twenty different
>> VPNs (and on quite a number of different web browsers to foil
>> fingerprinting).
>
> Sadly, I think the multiple reports could be misconstrued and end up
> being a dis-service.
>
> I strongly suspect that Google would give much more credence to fewer
> (longer lived and more active) accounts sending multiple reports (which
> pass the sanity check) than reports from more (shorter lived and less
> active) accounts.
>
> After all, what's to differentiate burner accounts posting spam vs other
> burner accounts complaining about spam from a burner account turf war?

Oh. That's interesting. I never log into a Google Account when I'm online.
Yet, one certainly could post that complaint using their own accounts.

While I have plenty of accounts, it didn't even occur to me to log in
_before_ posting a complaint. Thanks for opening my eyes to that method,
which, I'm sure, is the one method most people would have used from the
start.

So the instructions to complain to Google become:

a. Log into your google account on your favorite web browser
b. Go here <https://groups.google.com/g/google-usenet/about>
c. Press on the gear icon & select "Send feedback to Google"

Tell them the problem in your own words.
Thanks!

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote

> Indeed. For example this still finds (multiple occurences of) your
> article (assuming logged into a Google account)

I was going to mention that some of those MID URIs require being logged
into a Google Account, which Frank knows but maybe others might not.

So he's right when he says "(assuming logged into a Google account):".

Since I'm almost never logged into any Google account when I use Google
services, I immediately noticed these URIs Frank initially supplied failed.
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=MID&dmode=source>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=MID>
They asked me to log into my Google Account (which I almost never do).

These, of course work without needing to be logged into a Google Account.
<http://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>
<http://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>
<http://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android>
which is, after all, the beauty of the dejagoogle beast.
--
Usenet is a venue for intelligent people to widely share their knowledge.

This banner is now appearing on Google GRoups

Effective from 15 February 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content
from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data
will still be supported as it is done today.

They should pay every nntp server on top1000
US$1 000 000 000 000 for their incompetence!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote

> I wonder if the indexing for that was performed by DeJa and Google
> simply brought it forward but didn't continue creating said index.
>
> The different behavior for articles posted at different times tends to
> support Google being very inconsistent in what they do.

I have no idea if this will help, but the "old" method still works.

To obtain the OLD URI, if you're quick, you can see it when you go here:
<http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-android>

Note when I had created that tinyurl, the old syntax was the following:
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/comp.mobile.android>

Which currently will rather quickly redirect you to this simplified URL:
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android>

Dunno if that adds value or not, as those are the old syntactical methods.

See also:
<https://tinyurl.com/news-admin-peering>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/news.admin.peering>
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>

<https://tinyurl.com/news-admin-net-abuse-usenet>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote

> This banner is now appearing on Google GRoups

Yeah. I noticed it too and posted this thread about it.
*Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new Usenet content*
<https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/c/_w1mbwzgzs0>

What that means is:
a. The ability to search before asking, will be greatly diminished.
b. The ability to reference a URI to a thread or post will disappear.
c. The ability for non-Usenet folks to "read" Usenet will go away too

Sigh.
Maybe we asked for too much from Google?

--
The whole point of Usenet is to reach out to others to help them, and to
learn from them and then to add to the group's tribal knowledge for others.

In article <ulg2q6$3o7in$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote
>
>> This banner is now appearing on Google GRoups
>
>Yeah. I noticed it too and posted this thread about it.
> *Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
>Usenet content*
> <https://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering/c/_w1mbwzgzs0>
>
>What that means is:
>a. The ability to search before asking, will be greatly diminished.
>b. The ability to reference a URI to a thread or post will disappear.
>c. The ability for non-Usenet folks to "read" Usenet will go away too
>

Bogus on c.

>Sigh.
>Maybe we asked for too much from Google?
>

Nope! Google Groups like Google Mail is anti-spam incompetent.

>--
>The whole point of Usenet is to reach out to others to help them, and to
>learn from them and then to add to the group's tribal knowledge for others.

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote

>>c. The ability for non-Usenet folks to "read" Usenet will go away too
>>
>
> Bogus on c.

Hmmmmm. Pray tell please... how?

Maybe you know something I don't know about providing your mom, or your
non-technical neighbor, or your non-Usenetted coworker a read-only link to
almost any Usenet thread or article w/o using dejagoogle (and without
subjecting them to a HowardKnight search when nobody has the Message ID)?
--
And no, we won't give them the MessageID as they're not going to deal with
it (and nobody would have that Message-ID anyway, in a normal situation).

In article <ulgft5$3tfll$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote
>
>>>c. The ability for non-Usenet folks to "read" Usenet will go away too
>>>
>>
>> Bogus on c.
>
>Hmmmmm. Pray tell please... how?
>
>Maybe you know something I don't know about providing your mom, or your
>non-technical neighbor, or your non-Usenetted coworker a read-only link to
>almost any Usenet thread or article w/o using dejagoogle (and without
>subjecting them to a HowardKnight search when nobody has the Message ID)?

Or a revival of interest!

>--
>And no, we won't give them the MessageID as they're not going to deal with
>it (and nobody would have that Message-ID anyway, in a normal situation).

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

The Doctor wrote:

> Wally J wrote:
>
>> What that means is:
>> a. The ability to search before asking, will be greatly diminished.
>> b. The ability to reference a URI to a thread or post will disappear.
>> c. The ability for non-Usenet folks to "read" Usenet will go away too
>
> Bogus on c.

There'll be nothing *TO* read

"new content from Usenet peers will not appear"

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote
>
> > Indeed. For example this still finds (multiple occurences of) your
> > article (assuming logged into a Google account)
>
> I was going to mention that some of those MID URIs require being logged
> into a Google Account, which Frank knows but maybe others might not.
>
> So he's right when he says "(assuming logged into a Google account):".
>
> Since I'm almost never logged into any Google account when I use Google
> services, I immediately noticed these URIs Frank initially supplied failed.
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=MID&dmode=source>
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=MID>
> They asked me to log into my Google Account (which I almost never do).

Given that Google Groups is going to be shut down for new Usenet
content, this issue is somewhat moot, but ...

As I wrote, the 'selm=MID&dmode=source' and 'selm=MID' form URLs work
for some (very?) *old* articles and do *not* work for new(er)/current
articles, so it's no wonder that you got an error.

However for the (very?) old articles for which the URLs work, you do
*not* have to logged into a Google Account.

> These, of course work without needing to be logged into a Google Account.
> <http://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>
> <http://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>
> <http://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android>
> which is, after all, the beauty of the dejagoogle beast.

The point of the URL forms I gave (including the form for new articles
(which needs to be logged into a Google account)) is to display an
*article*, given *only* the message-id. The URLs you give, point to a
*newsgroup*, not to an article-by-message-id.

On 12/14/23 19:30, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <ulg2q6$3o7in$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
> Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>> Sigh.
>> Maybe we asked for too much from Google?
>>
>
> Nope! Google Groups like Google Mail is anti-spam incompetent.

To be fair, at least Google Mail tried.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

In article <ku2kurFp458U1@mid.individual.net>,
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote:
>
>> Wally J wrote:
>>
>>> What that means is:
>>> a. The ability to search before asking, will be greatly diminished.
>>> b. The ability to reference a URI to a thread or post will disappear.
>>> c. The ability for non-Usenet folks to "read" Usenet will go away too
>>
>> Bogus on c.
>
>There'll be nothing *TO* read
>
>"new content from Usenet peers will not appear"

Try a REAL newsserver.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

In article <ulhshm$1uv5a$1@dont-email.me>,
candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>On 12/14/23 19:30, The Doctor wrote:
>> In article <ulg2q6$3o7in$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
>> Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>> Sigh.
>>> Maybe we asked for too much from Google?
>>>
>>
>> Nope! Google Groups like Google Mail is anti-spam incompetent.
>
>To be fair, at least Google Mail tried.

https://www.nk.ca/blog/index.php?/categories/14-Google-Spam

>--
>user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
>

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

On 12/15/23 10:10, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <ulhshm$1uv5a$1@dont-email.me>,
> candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>> On 12/14/23 19:30, The Doctor wrote:
>>> In article <ulg2q6$3o7in$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
>>> Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>>> Sigh.
>>>> Maybe we asked for too much from Google?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope! Google Groups like Google Mail is anti-spam incompetent.
>>
>> To be fair, at least Google Mail tried.
>
> https://www.nk.ca/blog/index.php?/categories/14-Google-Spam
>

I said **tried**, not succeeded. My spam inbox has some suspicious stuff
that it caught.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

In article <ulhu93$1uv5b$11@dont-email.me>,
candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>On 12/15/23 10:10, The Doctor wrote:
>> In article <ulhshm$1uv5a$1@dont-email.me>,
>> candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>>> On 12/14/23 19:30, The Doctor wrote:
>>>> In article <ulg2q6$3o7in$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
>>>> Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>>>> Sigh.
>>>>> Maybe we asked for too much from Google?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope! Google Groups like Google Mail is anti-spam incompetent.
>>>
>>> To be fair, at least Google Mail tried.
>>
>> https://www.nk.ca/blog/index.php?/categories/14-Google-Spam
>>
>
>I said **tried**, not succeeded. My spam inbox has some suspicious stuff
>that it caught.

WEll I just use blackholes.

>--
>user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
>

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote

>>>>c. The ability for non-Usenet folks to "read" Usenet will go away too
>>>>
>>>
>>> Bogus on c.
>>
>>Hmmmmm. Pray tell please... how?
>>
>>Maybe you know something I don't know about providing your mom, or your
>>non-technical neighbor, or your non-Usenetted coworker a read-only link to
>>almost any Usenet thread or article w/o using dejagoogle (and without
>>subjecting them to a HowardKnight search when nobody has the Message ID)?
>
> Or a revival of interest!

I'm sorry, but I do not understand your reply. No big deal... but...

I'm trying to faithfully understand your response to when I said this:
"c. The ability for non-Usenet folks to read Usenet will go away too"

You summarily & curtly discounted that observation with this:
"Bogus on c."

I'll agree with any logically sensible opinion based on fact.
Especially when you folks (n.a.p. & n.a.n-a.u) know much more than I do.

I think "c" is valid given one of the values of the dejagoogle archive was
that people who have nothing (per se) to do with Usenet, can read them.

1. They can search them...
2. They can click on a thread or article URI sent to them...
3. Therefore they can read Usenet articles using only a web browser
a. No nntp service required
b. No nntp newsreader required
4. On any platform

To me, that's a big deal since we _lose_ that capability in February.
Unless we can find a replacement to the dejagoogle archives.

The "closest" (which sucks by the way) archive I can find is this:
<https://comp.mobile.android.narkive.com>
<https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com>
<https://news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.narkive.com>

Let's work together to find a suitable replacement for dejagoogle.
--
I'm not on Usenet for my amusement; I'm here to learn what others know.
And if I can improve the discussion, I always try to add additinal value.

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote

>> Bogus on c.
>
> There'll be nothing *TO* read
>
> "new content from Usenet peers will not appear"

Every action we do should help the average person in addition to ourselves.

Thanks Andy for explaining the probable thought process of "The Doctor"
(where you are one of the few people who post to the Android newsgroup who
know more about Android than I'll ever be able to learn in my lifetime).

I'm sure folks like "The Doctor" know more about Usenet than I'll ever
know, which is why I was faithfully trying to understand his point of view.

I'm not on Usenet for may amusement - I'm here to learn and to teach,
so it's important that I understand others - especially when they disagree
(because that may mean I'm wrong on my own understanding of the facts).

Thanks for explaining that the point of view of "The Doctor" was likely
that the only thing people outside of Usenet (like our own mothers) would
be able to read is _old_ content (after February 15th of 2024 anyway).

This is true only if we can't find a suitable replacement web archive.
I'm hoping those who know Usenet better than I will find that replacement.
--
Every action we do should help the average person in addition to ourselves.

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote

>>> Bogus on c.
>>
>>There'll be nothing *TO* read
>>
>>"new content from Usenet peers will not appear"
>
> Try a REAL newsserver.

This isn't about us.
It's about them.

Nobody reading this thread will have a problem but EVERYONE who is reading
this thread has a mother or neighbor or coworker who NEEDS the information
we post to Usenet which we can easily get to them using a simple URL.

They can then read Usenet without having to know the technical details.

Unless "The Doctor" knows something I don't know, "trying a real
newsserver" won't work for that average person who doesn't know what Usenet
is and who doesn't have a newsreader - nor a news server to use it on.

*How do we reference information on Usenet to non-technical people?*

We can get that information.
But we can't get that information to THEM.

For example, I can send YOU a message id and you know what to do with it.
But I can't send THEM a message id - it would be patently absurd to do so.

Up until 20240215, THEY can read Usenet on any platform using any browser.
After 20240215, the only general-use news archive that I know of is...
<https://comp.mobile.android.narkive.com>
<https://news.admin.peering.narkive.com>
<https://news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.narkive.com>

But it sucks, mostly because I can never get the search to work reliably.
Can you?
--
Usenet is a wonderful medium for intelligent people to meet each other.

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote

> Given that Google Groups is going to be shut down for new Usenet
> content, this issue is somewhat moot, but ...

Agreed, as I'll agree with anyone who posits a sensibly logical assessment.

> As I wrote, the 'selm=MID&dmode=source' and 'selm=MID' form URLs work
> for some (very?) *old* articles and do *not* work for new(er)/current
> articles, so it's no wonder that you got an error.

Ah. I see. My mistake. I'm sorry. I apologize. I didn't get the main point.

> However for the (very?) old articles for which the URLs work, you do
> *not* have to logged into a Google Account.

I only tried it and it failed, but my assessment of why it failed was
apparently incorrect as I had "assumed" it failed due to the login alone.

Thanks for taking the time and energy and patience to clarify my mistake.

>> These, of course work without needing to be logged into a Google Account.
>> <http://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.peering>
>> <http://groups.google.com/g/news.admin.net-abuse.usenet>
>> <http://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android>
>> which is, after all, the beauty of the dejagoogle beast.
>
> The point of the URL forms I gave (including the form for new articles
> (which needs to be logged into a Google account)) is to display an
> *article*, given *only* the message-id.

Thank you for clarifying what the main point of the example was.
That's wonderful that the Message-ID could be searched on old dejagoogles.

Sorry for making the wrong assessment of the facts.
Mea culpa.

> The URLs you give, point to a
> *newsgroup*, not to an article-by-message-id.

Until this moment, I had never realized you could search the (old)
dejagoogle archives with a message-ID, so this is nice to know.

Back to your original line above, it may not matter in a few months.
--
On Usenet you can disagree & then learn from the subsequent clarification.

On 12/15/23 11:31, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <ulhu93$1uv5b$11@dont-email.me>,
> candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>> On 12/15/23 10:10, The Doctor wrote:
>>> In article <ulhshm$1uv5a$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>>>> On 12/14/23 19:30, The Doctor wrote:
>>>>> In article <ulg2q6$3o7in$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
>>>>> Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>>>>> Sigh.
>>>>>> Maybe we asked for too much from Google?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope! Google Groups like Google Mail is anti-spam incompetent.
>>>>
>>>> To be fair, at least Google Mail tried.
>>>
>>> https://www.nk.ca/blog/index.php?/categories/14-Google-Spam
>>>
>>
>> I said **tried**, not succeeded. My spam inbox has some suspicious stuff
>> that it caught.
>
> WEll I just use blackholes.

But aren't those in space?

(also side question why do you write "well" like that?)
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

> Wally J wrote:
> Given a call to Mountainview is never picked up by a human being...

> https://i.postimg.cc/d388rqkj/google02.jpg +1 (650) 253-0000
>
> If you care about either Usenet or the DejaNews DejaGoogle search
> engine (which provides links to specific Usenet posts), then...
>
> *Please Do This!*
> https://groups.google.com/g/google-usenet/about
> Which will look like this:
> https://i.postimg.cc/3JzWxG3f/please-do-this.jpg
>
> The DejaGoogle search engine is useful to everyone (not just us)
because:
> a. DejaGoogle doesn't require an account or paying for retention
> b. DejaGoogle links work for everyone (even your 99 year old
mother)
> c. DejaGoogle only needs a web browser (which everyone has)
>
> The problem with all this spam from Google servers is that even
finding the
> URI to an article posted _today_ is a mess of wading through that
garbage.
>
https://i.postimg.cc/yxpSLVrr/Google-Groups-Usenet-Portal-spam-20231206-730am.jpg

>
> Details follow...
>
> That is the easiest way (I know of) to complain to Google about
> their Google-Groups servers allowing Google Usenet portal spam
> (which ruins their own Usenet DejaGoogle search engine output)
> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android
> You're welcome to upload this screenshot showing the problem:
>
https://i.postimg.cc/fyCXPjpR/Google-Groups-Usenet-Portal-spam-20231206-730am.jpg

>
> Together, maybe we can get Google to at least look at the problem
we face.
>
> *Please do this today:*
> 1. Go to https://groups.google.com/g/google-usenet/about" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://groups.google.com/g/google-usenet/about
> 2. Click the "Gear" icon at the top right of that web
page
> 3. Select the option to "Send feedback to Google"
> Box 1: "Tell us what prompted this feedback."
> Box 2: "A screenshot will help us better understand your
feedback."
>
> Optionally, you can do the deluxe version of sending feedback to
Google.
> A. In tab 1, go to
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android
> B. Take a screenshot & save it to a date-related name you can
easily find.
> C. In tab 2, go to
https://groups.google.com/g/google-usenet/about
> D. Click the "Gear" icon at the top right of that
"about" web page
> E. In the first box "Tell us what prompted this
feedback."
> tell Google the problem in a way that Google 'may' care about.
>
> For example, tell them something like "Your Google Groups
servers
> are allowing obvious off-topic rampant spamming by few
individuals
> https://groups.google.com
> such that your own Google Groups Server Search Engine
> http://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android
> is now useless because a few users are abusing your Google
servers."
>
> F. In the second box upload that screenshot of the first tab.
> G. Press the "Send" button on the bottom right of that
second tab.
>
> Here's what it looks like, with every step above documented below.
> https://i.postimg.cc/25gytfM9/googlebug1.jpg
> https://i.postimg.cc/sX0KBm6Z/googlebug2.jpg
> https://i.postimg.cc/mgt9kRxV/googlebug3.jpg
> https://i.postimg.cc/Mp2wMbN4/googlebug4.jpg
> https://i.postimg.cc/CLVYdsW-2/googlebug5.jpg
> https://i.postimg.cc/4ysLRySW-/googlebug6.jpg
>
> In summary, I tried contacting Google to find a better way, to no
avail.
> https://i.postimg.cc/kgFknPX0/google01.jpg
> So this online complaint form is the only one that I know about.
> https://groups.google.com/g/google-usenet/about
>
> If you know of a better way to complain about this, please let us
know.
> --
> Together we can get Google to stop spamming their own Usenet search
engine.

With the newly implemented captcha, some of the spam
from GG is reduced but still seems as if some is still bypassing their
capcha system. Won't matter much after Feb.

This is a response to the post seen at:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=658239684#658239684