🚀 go-pugleaf

Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:
>barbie gee <booger@nosespam.com> wrote:

>>I noticed that there's been a drop off of posts, and recall there was some 
>>kind of announcement that someone was dropping the feed.

>>Do I really have to go to Google Groups to see it?

>I don't see how that would help, unless it's some internal group at Google
>and not the usenet group.

>Usenet isn't centralized, so one system somewhere "dropping the feed"
>wouldn't make any difference in the grand scheme of things.

>What is more likely these days is, if there was a specific system like
>aol.com or msn.com, where people posted from to that group, and those
>systems dropped usenet support, unless the people on those system find
>another server, which most probably won't bother, that effects the number of
>posts.

>But it's not like they are missing, they just don't exist.

>Usenet is dying off. Recently someone posted stats on the number of posts
>made to it going back to like 1987. The peak was in 1999/2000 and has been
>dropping off since. 

It's not like Usenet was at its peak in QUALITY during that period. That's
when AOL was giving out all the damn disks.

>We're like at 1992 volume levels now, in another 5 years it'll probably be
>at 1987 levels, or for all practical purposes, the best thing next to zero
>as you can get.

I have no objection to lower traffic, quite frankly. Makes it easier to
keep up with articles in groups I subscribe to.