Retro Guy,

could you implement Number of views, known from Google Groups
since traffic in some groups is really low, making people to live
off-Usenet

But Number of views can boost interest in Usenet back

(feature known from Google Groups, worked always fine)

On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 13:37:35 +0000, darius wrote:

> Retro Guy,
>
> could you implement Number of views, known from Google Groups
> since traffic in some groups is really low, making people to live
> off-Usenet

That feature does not exist in the software. It's not something I plan
to consider any time soon.

Usenet traffic is what it is.

I can tell you that in the past 9 hours there have been 6,657 article
views (bots excluded), so about 12/minute. Not all that much.

--
Retro Guy

On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 14:13:00 +0000
Retro Guy <retroguy@novabbs.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 13:37:35 +0000, darius wrote:
>
> > Retro Guy,
> >
> > could you implement Number of views, known from Google Groups
> > since traffic in some groups is really low, making people to live
> > off-Usenet

Dependence on 3rd-party data of a big tech firm means bad mojo.
> That feature does not exist in the software. It's not something I plan
> to consider any time soon.

Hopefully you will never consider it, IMHO.
> Usenet traffic is what it is.

Exactly what it should be. Here each one of us is lord of all that he
surveys. Everyone gets heard. That happens almost nowhere these days.

The best of the best of the best come here to Usenet to do battle with
the worst of the worst of the worst.

> I can tell you that in the past 9 hours there have been 6,657 article
> views (bots excluded), so about 12/minute. Not all that much.

At the rate of 12 per minute that is 17280 views per day. This seems
about the right amount of views for a few dozen regular users.

Adding a google dependency or any 3rd party data dependency is a bad
idea with no true benefit. The idea that this needs to become popular
is not justified. Popular equals 99.9% rage outlet and spam content.

Google decided to amputate a leg to solve a blister on the toe. I think
it best to just move forward without any dependence on their
amputated big tech. I think Retro Guy has the right idea.

On Thu, 12 Sep 2024 4:02:13 +0000, SugarBug wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 14:13:00 +0000
> Retro Guy <retroguy@novabbs.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 13:37:35 +0000, darius wrote:
>>
>>> Retro Guy,
>>>
>>> could you implement Number of views, known from Google Groups
>>> since traffic in some groups is really low, making people to live
>>> off-Usenet
>
> Dependence on 3rd-party data of a big tech firm means bad mojo.
<snip>
>> I can tell you that in the past 9 hours there have been 6,657 article
>> views (bots excluded), so about 12/minute. Not all that much.
>
> At the rate of 12 per minute that is 17280 views per day. This seems
> about the right amount of views for a few dozen regular users.
>
> Adding a google dependency or any 3rd party data dependency is a bad
> idea with no true benefit. The idea that this needs to become popular
> is not justified. Popular equals 99.9% rage outlet and spam content.

Exactly. The intention is effective communication, not popularity. I
don't see what benefit there is to seeing how many other people have
viewed the article you wish to view. Do you then decide, "Oh, that's not
enough people, I won't read it."?

There exists a web forum that links to Usenet that spams it's url at the
end of all posts. It uses internal naming for groups, does not do
References properly, does not do quoting properly, and is basically a
pain. I don't wan to be that site :)

We're not trying to be popular, simply an effective way to access one or
a few of a user's favorite groups that they wish to visit regularly.
Many of my users migrated from GG just to stay in contact in their
"home" group, and it seems to work well for that. That is what this
place is designed to do, serve a particular type of user. (end rant
about ppl continuing to ask me to carry 42,000 groups on the site :)
Just pick a group to ask for, not all of them, lol.

--
Retro Guy

Number of views was a standard feature
with Google Groups , Usenet Google Groups

and many read and write Usenet via Google Groups
and got used to watch
Number of views in case of low-traffic groups

Since Google closed Usenet Google Groups

I created some Google Groups for old users
but traffic is low
and Number of views is the only way to know,
group is visited

Just have a look

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/thread.php?group=soc.culture.polish

hosted by novabbs

https://groups.google.com/g/soc.culture.polish

hosted by Google Groups in the past

the same group, created as ne Google Group, generating low traffic

https://groups.google.com/g/socculturepolish1

Could you redirect traffic from

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/thread.php?group=soc.culture.polish

to

https://groups.google.com/g/socculturepolish1

to make some older guys happy ?

new Google Grops (non-usenet groups)
still come with email contact

for writing and reading the posts

I don't operate usenet server to set up such gateway:

Usenet < > Google Group

Let me know your opinion