Re: Is this the end of SLJ? -- Spam was the main factor (that destroyed SLJ)?

On 6/30/2024 5:24 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

In article <v5seg5$m194$1@dont-email.me>,
HenHanna  <HenHanna@devnull.tb> wrote:

On 10/25/2023 10:09 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

In article <RJZgNzzq7otMBCT65@bongo-ra.co>,
Spiros Bousbouras  <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 14:41:20 -0000 (UTC)
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:

Is this like comp.arch or comp.lang.c?

>
I'm not sure what you're asking. If the question is whether the spam on
sci.lang.japan  is as bad as it is on  comp.arch  or  comp.lang.c , I
don't know. Try the groups through a server which doesn't seem to filter
the spam (news.cyber23.de  doesn't seem to do so) and with your own filters
off and you can form your own opinion.

>
It is similar spam injected in a similar way.  Much like the spam on
comp.os.vms and on comp.protocols.time.ntp.  It is more or less a universal
problem across usenet.  Many sites sites just dump all Google postings or
dump anything with "UTF-8" in a malformed subject line.

>
so you think Spam was the main factor  (that destroyed SLJ)?

 I didn't see spam being a problem in technical groups because they had so
few Google Groups users that everybody just dropped all Google postings
in the past decade anyway, and of course all the spam came through Google.
 Whether it was a problem in s.l.j or how it was a problem or whether
Google being dropped off usenet voluntarily affected s.l.j I have no idea
about because I never read the group.
 But currently there is no connection between Google Groups and Usenet and
there is very little spam.  Many groups that were inundated with spam and
had a small number of Google users are doing well today.
--scott

so you think Spam was the main factor  (that destroyed SLJ)?
             from my experience from GG...   it seems that Spammers tended to avoid NG Groups that were actually  occupied (and used)