Xbiz promoting newsgroup reseller?

[Jim]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Jim, the filtering bothers me because if I took images from usenet and just put them on my site, I would get my ass banned all over the place and have content providers send C&Ds all over. Filtering, the showing of images without the context is a real problem. NO 2257, no license, no contract... usenet wide open with the end user doing the filtering is UP TO THE USER. When the usenet provider has built in filtering, thumbnailers, and generally allows people to quickly enjoy content without context, well, they pass the line.

Just one of those things.

Alex

I agree with this but, as Greenie asks in his own little way Is he just making it easier to access the images or is he downloading them?

[Toby]

Originally Posted by Jim

I agree with this but, as Greenie asks in his own little way Is he just making it easier to access the images or is he downloading them?

Usenet content is being displayed on an Internet web page.
I don't see any practical way for that to be done without downloading the messages from Usenet and saving them to a database for access by a web server. I'm sure I'll be corrected if wrong, but I seriously doubt that the images are converted from UUE, BASE64, etc., then thumbnailed, and displayed in real time for every browser request. That would be a huge processing load on the server.

[RawAlex]

Toby, you hit the nail on the head - processing overhead to re-thumbnail a newsgroup every time would be insane, not likely. No, the images are pulled out, thumbnailed in bulk, and so on. If it is the same version of the software that I saw, you use the thumbnails to download the images only in bulk - no messages, no headers, no nothing - just bulk download. That software runs SERVER SIDE not USER SIDE. User only downloads and enjoy images, movies, and such and is not subjected to the actual newsgroup messages.

"A full featured server-side newsreader, that offers instant web-based access to newsgroups. DRN simplifies the news reading process by automatically decoding, downloading & displaying multimedia content for users."

Once you start editing, filtering, or simplifying the extraction of only images you have pretty much jumped the line.

Alex

[RawAlex]

Jim, putting it in simpler terms, it is a fusker of newsgroups.

Alex

[Greenguy]

eroticusenet - can you tell me the URL of a site that's using this & then I'll just join the fucker & see it for myself.

[RawAlex]

I sense a tapdance coming on....

Alex

[Jim]

I just want to see it. I don't want to set it up on a site. I don't want a song and dance...let's see how it works.

[swedguy]

https://acc.newsguy.com/cgi-bin/sub_trial_form

There's a trial of the "software".
It didn't accept my CC, hope someone else has better luck.

[eroticusenet]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

eroticusenet, you don't understand... I have already seen your service. I need not say more.

Oh yeah, Alex, not Alec... that is for Sir Alec Guiness, not me.

Alex - you have not posted a truthful comment about our service within this entire discussion thread.

Two quick points...

1. You said that you've already seen our service - can you please provide the URL for the website where you viewed and accessed our service?

2. If you used our service Alex, then you know that we provide realtime access to Usenet newsgroups... and all of your statements about what we do and don't do have been incorrect. Why would you knowingly go out of your way to misrepresent our service, and lie about its features & functionality?

[eroticusenet]

Originally Posted by Toby

Usenet content is being displayed on an Internet web page.
I don't see any practical way for that to be done without downloading the messages from Usenet and saving them to a database for access by a web server. I'm sure I'll be corrected if wrong, but I seriously doubt that the images are converted from UUE, BASE64, etc., then thumbnailed, and displayed in real time for every browser request. That would be a huge processing load on the server.

As I've mentioned several times in this discussion thread, we provide realtime access to Usenet newsgroups, so your comment about saving content to a database is incorrect.

Usenet services do require a lot of servers, bandwidth, processing capacity, etc., so it's not a casual undertaking. You're correct on that point.

We've been providing Usenet services to retail and commercial customers for the past 12 years, so we've had the benefit of being able to gradually grow our infrastructure (hardware, bandwidth, etc.) along with our customer base.

That's one of the nice advantages of our service... a webmaster could add newsgroup access to their website, without having to locally operate a hardware/software infrastructure that's taken us 12 years to establish.

[Jim]

What the Fuck are you hiding? Why do you continuously overlook us asking to see the service before we make up our minds?

I gave you the benefit of the doubt but the more you evade the question of seeing the service, the more I think you are a thief.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by eroticusenet

...That's one of the nice advantages of our service... a webmaster could add newsgroup access to their website, without having to locally operate a hardware/software infrastructure that's taken us 12 years to establish.

Then you're telling us that you actually do convert Usenet encoded images (UUE, BASE64, etc.) to JPG format and thumbnail them on the fly every single time a user requests a thumbnail sorted page? Just a simple yes or no answer please, I grow weary of the song & dance and sales pitch.

[Greenguy]

|band

[Jim]

Toby, you aren't the only one sick of the song and dance.

[Useless]

Originally Posted by eroticusenet

That's one of the nice advantages of our service... a webmaster could add newsgroup access to their website, without having to locally operate a hardware/software infrastructure that's taken us 12 years to establish.

But WHY would a webmaster WANT to add newsgroup access to their site? Should we be convincing our surfers to go elsewhere to troll for free images rather than selling them on paysites?

[eroticusenet]

This discussion started when XBiz took our advertising dollars, and then decided to make disparaging comments about our service. They had a chance to review our website, service and banners in advance, so if there was a legitimate problem, a professional organization would have rejected our advertising before it went live.

Secondly, after reading incorrect opinions that had been posted to the Greenguy board, we made a genuine attempt to help educate folks about Usenet and our service.

We did this by offering webmasters an opportunity to try the service live at their website... free of charge... for an entire month. They could have tested the service personally, or they could have made it available to their site users... whichever was most convenient for them.

That process would have allowed us to get to know one another from a business to business standpoint, and more importantly, it would have given us a chance to address specific questions and concerns on an individual basis.

Unfortunately, rather than take advantage of that generous offer, people ignored it... determined that it wasn't worth their time... or they visited an unrelated retail Usenet site to setup a trial account with a bad credit card.

Rather than take 15 minutes to actually try a service, it's seems that folks are more content with sitting back and arriving at uninformed conclusions instead. It's an unfortunate situation, but it's obvious that we're not going to get a fair shake.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by eroticusenet

...It's an unfortunate situation, but it's obvious that we're not going to get a fair shake.

You've been given ample opportunity to give straight answers to simple questions. Instead you point fingers at those asking the questions, give vague and evasive answers, and spew forth more ad copy. You've been your own worst enemy here. A few yes or no answers would have settled the issue on page one instead of dragging on for three or four. But I don't think you really wanted to give truthful answers to those questions.

The ball is in your court, put up or shut up!

[Jim]

Originally Posted by eroticusenet

Rather than take 15 minutes to actually try a service, it's seems that folks are more content with sitting back and arriving at uninformed conclusions instead. It's an unfortunate situation, but it's obvious that we're not going to get a fair shake.

Jesus Christ, are you both blind and stupid or just stupid? How many times do we have to ask to see it to make informed comments. It is you that is hiding from it.

I was the only person that didn't jump to conclusions and now I have no choice.

[Useless]

WWASD

What Would Al Swearingen Do?

[swedguy]

Originally Posted by eroticusenet

or they visited an unrelated retail Usenet site to setup a trial account with a bad credit card.

So you're saying that NewsGuy isn't related to Erotic Usenet?

Odd. They have the same phone number as you posted earlier in this thread. The mainstream ad copy is a copy of the Erotic Usenet frontend. There are couple of other frontends too with the exact same design and ad copy.

[Greenguy]

Originally Posted by eroticusenet

...Rather than take 15 minutes to actually try a service...

HOLY FUCKING CHRIST! Tell me where I can try the fucking thing out for myself & I'll go fucking try it!!!!!!

How fucking dense are you?

[Jim]

I really can't remember being so frustrated
We almost beg to see the service then he claims we need to see the service to form an opinion.

I suspect he is hiding the truth. Xbiz probably made the right decision to stop dealing with him.

[Jeremy]

eroticusenet:

I get the feeling you guys are a mainstream company making their first foray into the adult webmaster B2B market and you either haven't done your market research / consultancy at all, or you've been advised by someone who knows sweet FA about the market.

I get this feeling because:

- your parent company PathLink was an ISP between 1997 at least and June 04, and that domain was reg'd in '95;

- you're failing to understand the idea that adult webmasters generally will give even big established companies a hard time;

- you're failing miserably at giving adult webmasters clear and concise info about your product backed up with salient facts.

Now having said that, here's some free consultancy for you:

- Adult webmasters can generally be described as independent, feisty, cantankerous, cynical. They've had more people try to sell them fool's gold than you've had hot dinners.

- As a rule adult webmasters are as easy to herd as cats. Mainstream webmasters seem much more supine.

- If you'd had proper advice you'd know who Greenguy is (http://www.link-o-rama.com/) and who Jim is (chat to the guys at CECash and FlashCash). I've only been doing this since Jan 97, so I'm a newbie. I think you could trust them with working demo access.

- Selling content in today's market is unbelievably tough. Selling feeds / plugins is even tougher. I've sold both.

- In order to sell feeds webmaster access to a working demo is sine qua non. I couldn't spot one on your site.

- In today's content market 2257 is a very big issue, especially with proposed amendments to 2257 last summer / fall - although they haven't been effected yet. I couldn't see any 2257 info on your site. If you think it isn't relevant to your service, think again. It's very relevant to your market.

- You've probably only got one more chance to convince the crowd before the thumb goes down and the lions are released. Use it wisely.

- You really should have hired a decent consultant.

Good luck.

[Jel]

Very well put Jeremy, nice post.

[Jim]

I was thinking the same thing about a consultant, Jeremy
But now, a new front man might be in order