do like the new look?
 

It's like SWMBO reararangeing the furniture. Now when you click on a
thread the replys are not numbered. It can be confusing when in a long
thread. Also they do not list the number of new authors vs number of
replys.
If enough of us complain do you think they will go back to the old
style?
Engineman

do like the new look?
 

Probably not. They seem to have used the desktop real estate saved by
deleting those to push their horrid little "rating" thing. Ick. FWIW,
I've already sent in my complaint.

do like the new look?
 

Might I inquire what you are discussing???

--

Clif Holland KA5IPF
www.avvid.com


wrote in message
oups.com...
Probably not. They seem to have used the desktop real estate saved by
deleting those to push their horrid little "rating" thing. Ick. FWIW,
I've already sent in my complaint.

do like the new look?
 

I would assume that it's Agent 3.2 which was released 1/31/2006
compared to Agent 3.1 released in 2005. Agent is a combined
newsreader/e-mail client software package that is very popular.

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 08:13:30 GMT, "Clif Holland"
wrote:

Might I inquire what you are discussing???

do like the new look?
 

Interesting. Here I thought I screwed up some setting. I was just going
to start looking on how to "fix" this. Sounds like I can't.
FYI, I don't like the new look either. I miss the count of the new
replies too.
Mike

do like the new look?
 

"Clif Holland" wrote in message news:KcXHf.22124$Eq.11995@trnddc02...
Might I inquire what you are discussing???

--

Clif Holland KA5IPF
www.avvid.com


wrote in message
oups.com...
Probably not. They seem to have used the desktop real estate saved by
deleting those to push their horrid little "rating" thing. Ick. FWIW,
I've already sent in my complaint.


Might be Google groups...

do like the new look?
 

do like the new look?
 

According to :
It's like SWMBO reararangeing the furniture. Now when you click on a
thread the replys are not numbered. It can be confusing when in a long
thread. Also they do not list the number of new authors vs number of
replys.

I presume that you are talking about how the newsgroups appear
when you are using Google to view them, since you are posting through
Google, but you should understand that they look different depending on
the newsreader program being used to view them. In the case of Google,
it is their own program, access through a web page, while for most
other, it is a stand-alone newsreader program running on their own
computer, and they can select from many different newsreaders. (Most
Windows users seem to be be selecting either Outlook Express, or some
web browser, instead of a stand-alone newsreader, but those who have
known usenet for a long time usually pick some other program.

If enough of us complain do you think they will go back to the old
style?

Why should *I* bother to complain? I don't *use* their services,
so I have no idea what it looks like -- except that the last time I
tried it, it was quite clumsy. For all I know, I might find the new
format better.

Listing the number of authors hardly seems necessary to me,
though my newsreader lists the number of unread articles per thread, and
the names of the posters.

Remember -- Google is *not* usenet -- it is only one of many
ways to access usenet, and far from the best in my opinion.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

do like the new look?
 

According to Thomas Kendrick :

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 08:13:30 GMT, "Clif Holland"
wrote:

Might I inquire what you are discussing???

I would assume that it's Agent 3.2 which was released 1/31/2006
compared to Agent 3.1 released in 2005. Agent is a combined
newsreader/e-mail client software package that is very popular.

I think not. Both the original poster and the first response
were posting through Google, so I presume that they've changed the
appearance. And who else but Google users, these days, think that what
they are using is the *only* way to read usenet newgroups -- if they
even realize that it is usenet newsgroups that they are reading. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

do like the new look?
 

wrote:

Google did change their format and it may not be as handy on some
threads.
The big advantage Google has in accessing usenet is that it works with
any ISP.

So does any real newsreader. If your ISP doesn't have an NNTP server
news.individual.net isn't all that expensive.

Dan
DoN. Nichols wrote:



Remember -- Google is *not* usenet -- it is only one of many
ways to access usenet, and far from the best in my opinion.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

do like the new look?
 

"DoN. Nichols" wrote:
According to Thomas Kendrick:
, "Clif Holland" wrote:

Might I inquire what you are discussing???

I would assume that it's Agent 3.2 which was released 1/31/2006
compared to Agent 3.1 released in 2005. Agent is a combined
newsreader/e-mail client software package that is very popular.

I think not. Both the original poster and the first response
were posting through Google, so I presume that they've changed the
appearance. And who else but Google users, these days, think that what
they are using is the *only* way to read usenet newgroups -- if they
even realize that it is usenet newsgroups that they are reading. :-)

Not to mention the blockheads almost never bother to quote what they are
replying to, leaving everyone else to wonder who on God's green earth they
are replying to. A day doesn't go by that I don't consider adding a global
google groups addition to my killfile.

On a related note, it seems Google has further eroded the original Deja News
archive interface. Now when you do a usenet search, the results don't
bother to mention the number of posts in the thread you are clicking on,
often leading to numerous wasted clicks going to low count threads. This,
of course, in addition to the udder bolloxing up of the interface they gave
us a year and a half ago. *******s.

Jon