Yahoo trashes 3 years of work

Yup, folks, they've done it.

Looking over the last three years of archives, all manners of tables, charts, diagrams, and lattices, have been rendered UTTERLY USELESS by Yahoo's newest megabyte-saving "feature".

Boy am I glad Robert Walker saved everything _before_ this happened.

R.W., where are you? I'd like to purchase a copy of _your_ version of the archives, if possible.

--- In tuning@y..., paul@s... wrote:
> Yup, folks, they've done it.
>
> Looking over the last three years of archives, all manners of
tables, charts, diagrams, and lattices, have been rendered UTTERLY
USELESS by Yahoo's newest megabyte-saving "feature".
>
> Boy am I glad Robert Walker saved everything _before_ this happened.
>
> R.W., where are you? I'd like to purchase a copy of _your_ version
of the archives, if possible.

Yikes!....Ouch!..... I guess "Yahoo" has lived up to it's name...

Many condolences, J Gill

> From: <paul@stretch-music.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 4:14 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Yahoo trashes 3 years of work
>
>
> Yup, folks, they've done it.
>
> Looking over the last three years of archives, all manners
> of tables, charts, diagrams, and lattices, have been rendered
> UTTERLY USELESS by Yahoo's newest megabyte-saving "feature".

I did find one way around this problem... sort of...

If you're using Internet Explorer to view a "trashed" diagram
in one of our archived posts, you can click on the menu choice
"View|Source", and the diagram will be there in its original form,
with HTML line-break tags <BR> added to the end of each line.

love / peace / harmony ...

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In tuning@y..., paul@s... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_31270.html#31270

> Yup, folks, they've done it.
>
> Looking over the last three years of archives, all manners of
tables, charts, diagrams, and lattices, have been rendered UTTERLY
USELESS by Yahoo's newest megabyte-saving "feature".
>
> Boy am I glad Robert Walker saved everything _before_ this happened.
>
> R.W., where are you? I'd like to purchase a copy of _your_ version
of the archives, if possible.

I can't believe this is true... but it is.

Luckily, I've saved a lot of stuff in hard copy... and *some* as HTML
files (but lost some of those with a computer crash...)

There are links from other sites to the graphics on these archives,
too...

I guess from this point on, all complex graphics will have to be done
as files and stored in the files section, or on other sites with
links...

This is a little pathetic. I hope somebody at least *mentions* what
happened to Yahoo... if they haven't already.

Is it possible that this space saving "feature" could be turned off
for a particular "graphics-intensive" group?

My guess is that it can't be... but is probably a "global
improvement" of their servers...

JP

--- In tuning@y..., paul@s... wrote:
> Yup, folks, they've done it.
>
> Looking over the last three years of archives, all manners of
tables, charts, diagrams, and lattices, have been rendered UTTERLY
USELESS by Yahoo's newest megabyte-saving "feature".

1. Making diagrams in ASCII on a system like Yahoo's was building a
house of cards in the first place. There is *nothing* in html
presentation, save the <pre></pre> tags that will preserve spacing. A
rare few raised the issues of web-based mailing lists a long while
ago, but the voices for a quick-and-free solution won out.

2. But you *did* subscribe in either individual emails, or digest
mode, no? And have all those copies, which come in plain text, no? I
guess that is what our dear RW is for, if he can take a break from
the latest improvements to FTS. On my machine, all the digests (that
I kept) are still intact.

3. Bandwidth saving features never need be utilized unless bandwidth
gets tight. Maybe if people had trimmed replies the flow would still
be flowing.

4. If information is important then it is important enough to be put
in a universal and unalterable format - i.e. graphics of some sort.
Since this group was less than willing to exist on a strict text-mode
mailserv somewhere, the ice was always thin and the temperature
rising.

5. Has anyone compared, directly, two identical posts, one from a
saved copy, and one drawn now from the archives, to see if they are
different (at the byte level)? Is it a 'display' issue, or actual
file-level content?

I'm sure there are solutions...

Regards,
Jon

There is an old Anaphorian belief that one of the main causes of war is inventory. When it reaches
a certain point, we can't take it and have to get rid of it anyway possible. Considering the
timing of this, one has to wonder if the connection might be more than we realized.

jonszanto wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., paul@s... wrote:
> > Yup, folks, they've done it.

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> 5. Has anyone compared, directly, two identical posts, one from a
> saved copy, and one drawn now from the archives, to see if they are
> different (at the byte level)? Is it a 'display' issue, or actual
> file-level content?

At least for old content, it's strictly a display issue. I just
"forward"ed an old message to myself by email and the formatting was
all there. Maybe you have to have Yahoo's HTML email conversion
option turned off too, as I do.

It's possible that new postings are actually getting the spaces
stripped from them. I haven't checked that yet.

I don't think it has anything to do with saving space.

--- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:
> It's possible that new postings are actually getting the spaces
> stripped from them. I haven't checked that yet.

I have now, and they aren't. So it's purely a display issue. Folks who
get it by email (at least without conversion to HTML) will get the
original formatting (at least if it was sent by email).
And you can always get the original formatting by clicking the
"Forward" button on the website and emailing it to yourself.

--- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:
> > It's possible that new postings are actually getting the spaces
> > stripped from them. I haven't checked that yet.
>
> I have now, and they aren't. So it's purely a display issue. Folks
who
> get it by email (at least without conversion to HTML) will get the
> original formatting (at least if it was sent by
email).
> And you can always get the original formatting by clicking the
> "Forward" button on the website and emailing it to yourself.

Ok. This works even if you post from the web interface. So no
information is being lost.

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
> If you're using Internet Explorer to view a "trashed" diagram
> in one of our archived posts, you can click on the menu choice
> "View|Source", and the diagram will be there in its original form,
> with HTML line-break tags <BR> added to the end of each line.

When I try this I still don't see all the spaces. Multiple consecutive
spaces have still been condensed to one, and leading spaces deleted.

Dave,
--- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:
> > So it's purely a display issue.

Just as I thought. Your 'test' emails came in to my email program
first, so I saw the spaces in the text, and then I saw in the online
version they weren't there. All that whining for naught.

Question is: will anyone learn a lesson from this, either by *making
sure* that files are shared/saved/etc in plain text -or- taking the
small amount of time to make a graphic of it? Because a free service
can do whatever it wants, and there is nothing to prevent that
service at some point in the future from mucking it up For Real.

> Ok. This works even if you post from the web interface. So no
> information is being lost.

So people will still use the web interface for ascii email. Wonders,
indeed, never cease...

Cheers,
Jon (who is realieved the crisis is over before I had to search for
that text-to-.gif proggie I have buried on the hard disk somewhere...)

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_31270.html#31275

>
> I did find one way around this problem... sort of...
>
> If you're using Internet Explorer to view a "trashed" diagram
> in one of our archived posts, you can click on the menu choice
> "View|Source", and the diagram will be there in its original form,
> with HTML line-break tags <BR> added to the end of each line.
>

That's still pretty awful. I'm thinking the only way is to make
small text files of the lattices in the "files" section...

JP

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> I'm thinking the only way is to make
> small text files of the lattices in the "files" section...

That would be a very smart and efficient way to do it. If one kept
the "commentary" down and focused on presenting the diagrams, there
could be oodles of text files stored within the limits allowed. And
plain text - *really* plain, ascii text files - would be readable on
so many platforms, which is not the case with .doc and .rtf files.
Only .gif and .jpg files (non-text, obviously) enjoy even remotely
the same amount of universal acceptance.

Of course, this leaves less room for music files...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., paul@s... wrote:
> > Yup, folks, they've done it.
> >
> > Looking over the last three years of archives, all manners of
> tables, charts, diagrams, and lattices, have been rendered UTTERLY
> USELESS by Yahoo's newest megabyte-saving "feature".
>
> 1. Making diagrams in ASCII on a system like Yahoo's was building a
> house of cards in the first place.

Geez, I guess Margo Schulter, Dan Stearns, and everyone else should
have listened to you!

> 2. But you *did* subscribe in either individual emails, or digest
> mode, no?

Me? No.

> And have all those copies, which come in plain text, no? I
> guess that is what our dear RW is for, if he can take a break from
> the latest improvements to FTS. On my machine, all the digests
(that
> I kept) are still intact.
>
> 3. Bandwidth saving features never need be utilized unless
bandwidth
> gets tight. Maybe if people had trimmed replies the flow would
still
> be flowing.

Oh please. This is on _all_ the YahooGroups, of which there are close
to a million (really!)

> 5. Has anyone compared, directly, two identical posts, one from a
> saved copy, and one drawn now from the archives, to see if they are
> different (at the byte level)? Is it a 'display' issue, or actual
> file-level content?

Monz seems to have found that it's a display issue. I hope he's right!

Paul,

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> Geez, I guess Margo Schulter, Dan Stearns, and everyone else should
> have listened to you!

That would be/have-been entirely up to them. These things happen...

> Me? No.

You *never* kept email from these lists, in any kind of form? Well,
that is a pretty critical mistake, if you really value mail-lists-as-
repositories, as I _know_ you do. Live and learn, but a few people
have filled in the gaps and tried to make a complete record, RW being
the prime 'hero'.

> Oh please. This is on _all_ the YahooGroups, of which there are
> close to a million (really!)

Wake up: waste is waste, no matter how many people do it. I seriously
doubt the formatting changes are more than a tiny bit related to it,
but the very Fact! that there are that many users on a _free_ service
means they need to squeeze performance wherever they can. It is a
very large shame that it has wreaked (temporary) havoc with such
things as ascii diagrams, but the house of cards analogy remains
intact. Caveat emptor.

> Monz seems to have found that it's a display issue. I hope he's
> right!

I believe it is Dave that found it, but it very much is a display
issue, as the plain-text Digest that came to me had embedded spaces
that *did not show* in the online version. His solution is simple:
forward any email msg you want to see to yourself as an email (and
everyone who knows makes sure their email program is set to a fixed-
width (preferably courier) font.

And this time, save those posts.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> You *never* kept email from these lists, in any kind of form?

I tried for a while, but I needed to free up space . . .
>
> > Oh please. This is on _all_ the YahooGroups, of which there are
> > close to a million (really!)
>
> Wake up: waste is waste, no matter how many people do it. I
seriously
> doubt the formatting changes are more than a tiny bit related to
it,
> but the very Fact! that there are that many users

That many Groups!

> on a _free_ service
> means they need to squeeze performance wherever they can.

Actually, it appears it had nothing to do with "squeezing
perfomance", and is reversible. Let's get it reversed!

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> I tried for a while, but I needed to free up space . . .

Um, hard drives are cheap. As are CD burners. I guess the bottom line
is that mail list 'archives' have to be one of the least robust
repository for valuable academic information.

> That many Groups!

Only amplifies my point, then.

> Actually, it appears it had nothing to do with "squeezing
> perfomance", and is reversible. Let's get it reversed!

How about let's use methods that can't be screwed up by changes in
the delivery system? How about learning a lesson?

Gosh, don't get me wrong, this is a true pain-in-the-ass situation.
I'm just advocating learning from our hemmorhoids and applying
Preparation H when appropriate. (did I really say that?)

Off to bed,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > I tried for a while, but I needed to free up space . . .
>
> Um, hard drives are cheap.

OK, I'll accept one as a christmas present.

> As are CD burners. I guess the bottom line
> is that mail list 'archives' have to be one of the least robust
> repository for valuable academic information.

Well, who said this is valuable academic information! Well, maybe
message #19306 is . . .

> How about let's use methods that can't be screwed up by changes in
> the delivery system? How about learning a lesson?

Don't worry -- I had no intention of ever using multiple spaces again
once I saw the situation arise.

In-Reply-To: <9v3qu0+fo00@eGroups.com>
Jon Szanto wrote:

> 1. Making diagrams in ASCII on a system like Yahoo's was building a
> house of cards in the first place. There is *nothing* in html
> presentation, save the <pre></pre> tags that will preserve spacing. A
> rare few raised the issues of web-based mailing lists a long while
> ago, but the voices for a quick-and-free solution won out.

What difference would not having a web interface have made? Text e-mails
are still working fine. And we're not the only ones to be caught out.
This message from Guido himself is corrupted, and I don't think it's
archived anywhere else:

</python-iter/message/201>

> 2. But you *did* subscribe in either individual emails, or digest
> mode, no? And have all those copies, which come in plain text, no? I
> guess that is what our dear RW is for, if he can take a break from
> the latest improvements to FTS. On my machine, all the digests (that
> I kept) are still intact.

Yes, Robert has been backing up the archives, which is good. Even if he
hadn't made a deliberate effort, we'd still be able to reconstruct it.

> 3. Bandwidth saving features never need be utilized unless bandwidth
> gets tight. Maybe if people had trimmed replies the flow would still
> be flowing.

I'm guessing this was done on all Yahoo's servers, and they didn't even
realize the impact it would have on the mailing lists. Our bandwidth is a
drop in the ocean.

> 4. If information is important then it is important enough to be put
> in a universal and unalterable format - i.e. graphics of some sort.
> Since this group was less than willing to exist on a strict text-mode
> mailserv somewhere, the ice was always thin and the temperature
> rising.

The most universal and unalterable format is ASCII text -- forget
graphics. I don't want to have to use an HTML web reader, or download
images from the website every time somebody wants to send a diagram. And
remember that trouble we had with popup ads. The solution then was to use
e-mail only.

> 5. Has anyone compared, directly, two identical posts, one from a
> saved copy, and one drawn now from the archives, to see if they are
> different (at the byte level)? Is it a 'display' issue, or actual
> file-level content?

There's a "view source" option that Yahoo provide, which should give the
original text message, but as noted it is also wrong. You can't view the
real source code (at least I can't get it to work with IE) because Yahoo
sends a different page. But if the forwarding works, their database must
be correct.

Graham

--- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:
> What difference would not having a web interface have made? Text e-
> mails are still working fine.

Exactly my point! If this were still a normal email list, instead of
one that finds the biggest part of it's life displaying itself in a
web interface, we wouldn't have the problem! My email is still fine...

> I'm guessing this was done on all Yahoo's servers, and they didn't
> even realize the impact it would have on the mailing lists.

I'm sure it didn't even appear on their radar.

> Our bandwidth is a drop in the ocean.

Yeah, but if it is significant across the boards then there are a lot
of drops. But I agree on one point: it is not something that is so
widespread (I'm theorizing) that we can expect them to care, so we
need to adjust accordingly.

> The most universal and unalterable format is ASCII text -- forget
> graphics. I don't want to have to use an HTML web reader, or
> download images from the website every time somebody wants to send
> a diagram. And remember that trouble we had with popup ads. The
> solution then was to use e-mail only.

Exactly. But the group went with the web-based Yahoo, and it is only
people looking at the msgs online (instead of in a text-based email
reader) that have the problem.

It will sort itself out.

Jon

Jon,

Having just read this message from you, I get the impression that you
(like others) may subscribe via (plain-text only) "individual emails"
or "daily digest" (many emails in one message). Obviously my message:

/tuning/topicId_31356.html#31364

does not do you any good with plain-text...

However, simply by enabling your email program (if possible) to
receive and compose in HTML, you would "have it made" (with no need
to copy-n-paste HTML from IE to your email program). You could
receive and transmit (and POST to groups) in HTML, with COLOR
GRAPHICS! Granted, however, there is no "text-only" archive to fall
back on, which (actually) *necessitates* that one receive gobs of
emails (which is not desirable to me personally) in their own (HTML
enabled) email programs, in order to be able to Reply To or Forward
the posts of others who have included HTML color graphics!...
I guess everything has it's price, and that IS an option (for those
who are willing to create personal email archives of group(s) posts.

Folks who use the WEB INTERFACE will (from now on), be able to view
text-only graphics (as the Yahoo interface, and text-only email
programs, create) as they were *intended* to be presented in
the "Expand Messages" mode. The "Reply To" and "Forward" message
boxes appear to resurrect the original text-only formatting, allowing
Replys and Forwards, as before. They are thus not restricted from
utilizing the new system as it is, as well... :)

J Gill

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:
> > What difference would not having a web interface have made? Text
e-
> > mails are still working fine.
>
> Exactly my point! If this were still a normal email list, instead
of
> one that finds the biggest part of it's life displaying itself in a
> web interface, we wouldn't have the problem! My email is still
fine...
>
> > I'm guessing this was done on all Yahoo's servers, and they
didn't
> > even realize the impact it would have on the mailing lists.
>
> I'm sure it didn't even appear on their radar.
>
> > Our bandwidth is a drop in the ocean.
>
> Yeah, but if it is significant across the boards then there are a
lot
> of drops. But I agree on one point: it is not something that is so
> widespread (I'm theorizing) that we can expect them to care, so we
> need to adjust accordingly.
>
> > The most universal and unalterable format is ASCII text -- forget
> > graphics. I don't want to have to use an HTML web reader, or
> > download images from the website every time somebody wants to
send
> > a diagram. And remember that trouble we had with popup ads. The
> > solution then was to use e-mail only.
>
> Exactly. But the group went with the web-based Yahoo, and it is
only
> people looking at the msgs online (instead of in a text-based email
> reader) that have the problem.
>
> It will sort itself out.
>
> Jon

Hi Dave,

> From: dkeenanuqnetau <d.keenan@uq.net.au>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 7:20 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Yahoo trashes 3 years of work
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
> > If you're using Internet Explorer to view a "trashed" diagram
> > in one of our archived posts, you can click on the menu choice
> > "View|Source", and the diagram will be there in its original form,
> > with HTML line-break tags <BR> added to the end of each line.
>
> When I try this I still don't see all the spaces. Multiple consecutive
> spaces have still been condensed to one, and leading spaces deleted.

It probably depends on your default editor for viewing webpage source
code.

This worked fine for me: clicking on "View|Source" opens Microsoft
Notepad, which shows the diagrams exactly as originally drawn, with
the <BR> added at the end of each line.

I don't know what happens if you're using Netscape.

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_31270.html#31317
>
> Oh please. This is on _all_ the YahooGroups, of which there are
close to a million (really!)
>

Now my curiosity is piqued... does anybody really have a rough count
of how many Yahoo groups there are? Do you know roughly, Paul??

Joseph

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_31270.html#31317
> >
> > Oh please. This is on _all_ the YahooGroups, of which there are
> close to a million (really!)
> >
>
> Now my curiosity is piqued... does anybody really have a rough
count
> of how many Yahoo groups there are? Do you know roughly, Paul??
>
> Joseph

There have to be at least 916672, since that's how many people are
subscribed to eGroups-Moderator-News. I figure not all moderators are
subscribed to this, and some moderators moderate more than one group.