Comment On Pop-up Potpourri: Perpetually in Beta

Agent Z always had such important messages to give.

Alex Papadimoulis:

Thats just . . . .WOW.

<sigh>

None of these crazy popups would happen if people would use a real dialog editor, like MS Paint.

Presumably, the J D Powers question expected a little more space in the dialog box. And with insufficient space, it wrapped.

(I assume the full question would be "Are you Latin-American", or similar.)

Maybe it's just me but I think google's "1-3 of about 653" is by design. Indicating, of all things, that is showing items 1-3 out of 653 items. Don't worry I didn't get any sleep at all last night I'm sure it makes sense to more sane people.

All those car companies and whatever other companies with their constant reference to 'JD POWERS RATED US #1' suddenly isn't so impressive.

Then, it also explains how Hyundai got one of those #1 ratings from them.

And some people don't like getting errors ...

First post in a while that's made me really laugh - thanks.

To be fair, no, I'm not sure it makes mush sense, even to sane people ;)

The real question is "Is google sure that there is about 653 items, or exactly 653 items, or maybe 653 items but it's not very secure about this, or 3 items, but 653 sounds cooler, and it beats MSN?"; Now, that's a question.

August 0?  Is this Sept 31st from yesterday still permeating across the DWTF zone?

Alex Papadimoulis:

Duh, I forgot to turn the phone on! <slaps hand to forehead>

Captcha,  What's a chocobot?

Alex Papadimoulis:

Talk about creative names for metro stations, Marcel van Kervinck found himself at Hong Kong's INTEGER DIVIDE BY 0 ...

I'm more concerned with the fact that their trains are run by DOS.

Alex Papadimoulis:

Talk about creative names for metro stations, Marcel van Kervinck found himself at Hong Kong's INTEGER DIVIDE BY 0 ...

There under were showing.

    Google does this when there are duplicate web pages in its index from different sites.  It will filter the results so that only unique page content is shown.  This is just an extreme case of that filtering. 

That actually makes sense if it's running on a PDA/phone.

Alex Papadimoulis:

But these Google errors are all excusable I suppose; they are perpetually in "Beta" after all. It's just a good thing that Jamie Swanson didn't schedule something on August 0 ...

I like the date range - "Aug NaN - 27, 2006". What a coincidence - I was born on August NaN myself!

Anonymous:

    Google does this when there are duplicate web pages in its index from different sites.  It will filter the results so that only unique page content is shown.  This is just an extreme case of that filtering. 

I don't know, it still seems real WTF'ey.  As a test I entered the same query and got results 1 - 2 of 653.  It did give me the following message: "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 2 already displayed.
If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included."

So yes I clicked it and received results 1-3 of 653.  I would have thought I had received the other 650 of them after this message.  Were these results not ommited?  If not where are they?

Alex Papadimoulis:

Another new fact from Google, Fred learned that 3 is "about 653" ...

Doesn't anyone else find the search terms a huge WTF in themselves? Clearly an example of brillant programming practices.

The phone is turned off, and there aren't any other connections at the moment.  Check the statusbar at the top of the screen shot.

Alex Papadimoulis:

Cool! August NaN is the day the Fall semester begins at WTFU!

Alex Papadimoulis:

Although I do appreciate error messages that give a few possible causes of failure, I'm so sure Brad Peterson's error qualifies ...

Anonymous:

The phone is turned off, and there aren't any other connections at the moment.  Check the statusbar at the top of the screen shot.

I don't see any symbol on the phone that would indicate it is off.

The real WTF here is that the user doesn't know how to use their expensive new "phone."  It's a PDA first and a phone second, but we won't get on that topic.  The phone is turned off, as you can see in the taskbar at the top of the screen, that's what the 'x' indicates.

Anonymous:

    Google does this when there are duplicate web pages in its index from different sites.  It will filter the results so that only unique page content is shown.  This is just an extreme case of that filtering. 

Not true.  Try googling "file contents as a variable".  It shows 1-2 of 653, and if you repeat the search with omitted results included, it shows 1-3 of 653.

captcha: jiggles

Anonymous:

Anonymous:

    Google does this
when there are duplicate web pages in its index from different sites. 
It will filter the results so that only unique page content is shown. 
This is just an extreme case of that filtering. 

Not true.  Try googling "file contents as a variable".  It shows 1-2
of 653, and if you repeat the search with omitted results included, it
shows 1-3 of 653.

captcha: jiggles

That's just 'cause all 653 results are from the same site, and google
doesn't show more than 3 results per site, unless the site: keyword is
used.


...although something slightly more odd is going on here...

Hehe. I thought that the Google one was just because Google omits copies of the pages it shows that it found at different URL's.

Well, no. If you do that search, it shows you results 1-2 of 653, and when you "repeat the search with the omitted results included.", you get the "full" set of 3....

We read a paper about how Google works in Operating System class... I believe the "of xxx" number is a fuzzy estimate of the result set before the search is completed, not necessarily the count of the actual result of the search.  In addition, Google stresses returning "some useful results quickly" over "the whole set of probably duplicate results much more slowly."   If folks don't find what they want in the first page or two they tend to change their search terms.

You might get a larger result set at a time when the Google computers are underloaded.  It's not clear it would be any more interesting, though.

So, does August NaN - 27th stand for "Not A Number"?  Which would still be pretty WTF? as zero most definitely is a number.

merreborn:

Anonymous:

Anonymous:

    Google does this
when there are duplicate web pages in its index from different sites. 
It will filter the results so that only unique page content is shown. 
This is just an extreme case of that filtering. 

Not true.  Try googling "file contents as a variable".  It shows 1-2
of 653, and if you repeat the search with omitted results included, it
shows 1-3 of 653.

captcha: jiggles

That's just 'cause all 653 results are from the same site, and google
doesn't show more than 3 results per site, unless the site: keyword is
used.


...although something slightly more odd is going on here...

site:free2code.net "file contents as a variable"

returns

Results 1 - 3 of about 4 from free2code.net for "file contents as a variable". (0.27 seconds)

Captcha: pizza (AKA, what I had for lunch)

Anonymous:

Captcha,  What's a chocobot?

Ever played Final Fantasy? I think those are the little bird things you can ride.

Manni:

Anonymous:

Captcha,  What's a chocobot?

Ever played Final Fantasy? I think those are the little bird things you can ride.

Nope thats a chocobo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocobo

Anonymous:

    Google does this when there are duplicate web pages in its index from different sites.  It will filter the results so that only unique page content is shown.  This is just an extreme case of that filtering. 

 

Try to execute the very same query on google, then click on "show duplicate results" and you get 2 pages with something like 17 results, and they still claim to have about 650 or so...

nah those are chocobo's



this is chocobot

Anonymous:

August 0?  Is this Sept 31st from yesterday still permeating across the DWTF zone?

Technically, that would be August -1st ('minus first')

Given the google search terms, it appears that Fred was responsible for Enric's extra-long variable name error message.

The Real WTF is that that photo wasn't taken on a wooden table.

They are showing relevant results 1-3 out of a possible 653 results. This is with possible duplicates filtered out. The page explains this if you read over it. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it a bug. A poorly design interface perhaps, but not a bug.

I got the following stats from google:
http://mikeage.net/2006/09/04/prophetic-google/

Anonymous:

 

Try to execute the very same query on google, then click on "show duplicate results" and you get 2 pages with something like 17 results, and they still claim to have about 650 or so...

Clearly it's all just due to the inability of pigeons to count to high numbers accurately:

http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html

Obviously, Google estimates the number of hits rather than count them, which would be very slow. You can see this with almost any query by going directly to the last page of hits and seeing how many they actually are, and how many were estimated.  See for example "some random query" in Google: 99 hits are estimated, 30 are actually found if you go to the last page (Results 21 - 30 of about 99 for "some random query". ).  I think the estimates are inflated usually, for the obvious reason.
 In fact, it is impossible to get hits past the 1000th, as you get the error "Sorry, Google does not serve more than 1000 results for any query. (You asked for results starting from 320000.)", so they are "hits" in a very questionable sort of way.

In one of the google API documents it mentions that the "of #" is fuzzy, so whomever said they mentioned that in class is right.  Otherwise it would have to preform the entire search to return the first page.

Sure it's wrong, but I would rather they be wrong than right and take forever.  (Although I guess it would be easy to see if max displayed result is less than results per page, then cap the "of #")

... I'm going to start developing things with messages in them boosting about how they were developed from the ground up.    

Fuzzy only in the sense that the number was picked up off the floor after being found by sweeping under the refridgerator in a colledge dorm room.

I mean seriously, when there are only 3 results total, how can 653 be at all calculated?  Note that the page went out, they know they have 10 pages so use that as a basis.

Now I know the number of pages is fuzzy, I've seen examples where I have links for 1-10 pages and by moving through using the next arrow you get to page 6 and suddenly there are only 6 pages.  Or perhaps this is also fuzzy like something pulled out of a sweaty jocks belly button first thing in the morning.

 

Re: Phone not on.

This is a "developer speaks a different language" WTF.  To the author of this error message, "phone" refers to the radio chip that transmits data between your "device" and the cell tower.  You can turn the "phone" off and still play Solitaire or whatever.  You would do this when flying and your "cell phone" must be turned off.

To the average user, the phone is the thing he/she is holding in his/her hand, and it is obviously turned on...

DigitalLogic:

Alex Papadimoulis:

Talk about creative names for metro stations, Marcel van Kervinck found himself at Hong Kong's INTEGER DIVIDE BY 0 ...

I'm more concerned with the fact that their trains are run by DOS.

Someone remind me: what does the 'smiley-face flower' command do again?

Anonymous:

The real WTF here is that the user doesn't know how to use their expensive new "phone."  It's a PDA first and a phone second, but we won't get on that topic.  The phone is turned off, as you can see in the taskbar at the top of the screen, that's what the 'x' indicates.

If that's true, why doesn't the PDA just turn the phone on?  I mean, duh.

Although it still seems like terrible interface design personally.  The screen is on, there's all kinds of fancy icons, what rational person would think that the screen being on doesn't imply that the phone is also on?  Also:  What is the point to turning the phone off but keeping the PDA on?

Anonymous:

All those car companies and whatever other companies with their constant reference to 'JD POWERS RATED US #1' suddenly isn't so impressive.

Then, it also explains how Hyundai got one of those #1 ratings from them.

Hyundai has actually made improvements in leaps and bounds in recent years.  They're seriously pretty close to on par with manufacturers like Honda and Toyota in terms of reliability these days, if you pay attention to places like Consumer Reports, which are pretty typically on the mark.

CAPTCHA: batman, I wish I had a Batmobile though...

Alex Papadimoulis:

Enric Naval discovered, quite possibly, the longest variable name ever ...

It's a Mahjong board, right?

Alex Papadimoulis:

Another new fact from Google, Fred learned that 3 is "about 653" ...

I know how much y'all love that badly underused phrase, so: The real WTF is that I had to enter this query myself in order to find out what's wrong with it. But then people prolly think that the "ten per page" setting is hard coded in the Google search engine.

Alex Papadimoulis:

Talk about creative names for metro stations, Marcel van Kervinck found himself at Hong Kong's INTEGER DIVIDE BY 0 ...

Ok, this one's nice. Reminds me of a funny split-flap display at the main station in Stuttgart, Germany. It displayed about one in ten letters incorrectly, usually it's off by one. Once that I looked at it, it displayed "REGIOMALEXORERS" instead of "REGIONALEXPRESS". That's three errors in sixteen letters. The destination was incorrect, too, of course, something like "MEMMINFEN" instead of "MEMMINGEN", though I don't remember that part. I just hope the train times display is more accurate.

Alex Papadimoulis:

Now this is a "user friendly" pop-up! Mike noticed that the only thing the developer forgot to include was the six minutes required to read the message ...

Ok, it's a WTF, but it's a tiny WTF compared to the WTF of posting a badly clipped (Alt+PrtScr anyone?) and blurred (looks like it was resized to 60% - in MS Paint) dialog screenshot as a JPEG file. JPEG creates ugly artifacts on text and makes botched screenshots even harder to read. And PNG has been there for a while, really.

I dare say that Mac users don't perform such obscenity.

Alex Papadimoulis:

Hey, but atleast MySpace gives you plenty of options to choose NO or NO to, as B Tucker found out ...

This WTF was brought to you by ColdFusion - the best programming language since HTML...

Alex Papadimoulis:

But these Google errors are all excusable I suppose; they are perpetually in "Beta" after all. It's just a good thing that Jamie Swanson didn't schedule something on August 0 ...

I managed to duplicate this, briefly, but now I can't do it again.  What I did:

Opened my calendar.  Switched to "next 4 weeks" view (visit Settings to create that custom view), and clicked on the minicalendar to get it starting on July 30.  Then I went to Settings and changed my start date to Monday.  Poof -- I had the above display.  But now I can't make it happen again.  Why not?

Maybe you'll have better luck.

Because if you are on a plane or in a hospital and need the PDA, the phone must be turned OFF. But what happens if you accidentally try to connect and the phone turns ON automatically? It must stay OFF untill you turn it on manually through the menu.

Well, if you're on an airplane, you need to turn the radio off but you could still use the rest of the PDA (watching video, editing documents, reading cached email, etc...)

Anonymous:

Fuzzy only in the sense that the number was picked up off the floor after being found by sweeping under the refridgerator in a colledge dorm room.

I mean seriously, when there are only 3 results total, how can 653 be at all calculated?  Note that the page went out, they know they have 10 pages so use that as a basis.

Now I know the number of pages is fuzzy, I've seen examples where I have links for 1-10 pages and by moving through using the next arrow you get to page 6 and suddenly there are only 6 pages.  Or perhaps this is also fuzzy like something pulled out of a sweaty jocks belly button first thing in the morning.

I remember reading somewhere that Google only shows what it considers relevant results, in an attempt to get rid of pages that just stack together words at random to pull you into a porn site (and other dirty tricks). It wouldn't surprise me to find that there really were 600-odd pages that used that combination of words somewhere and that those pages were excluded. Google does not make any claims ANYWHERE about transparency.

Anonymous:

Fuzzy only in the sense that the number was picked up off the floor after being found by sweeping under the refridgerator in a colledge dorm room.

I mean seriously, when there are only 3 results total, how can 653 be at all calculated?  Note that the page went out, they know they have 10 pages so use that as a basis.

Now I know the number of pages is fuzzy, I've seen examples where I have links for 1-10 pages and by moving through using the next arrow you get to page 6 and suddenly there are only 6 pages.  Or perhaps this is also fuzzy like something pulled out of a sweaty jocks belly button first thing in the morning.

I remember reading somewhere that Google only shows what it considers relevant results, in an attempt to get rid of pages that just stack together words at random to pull you into a porn site (and other dirty tricks). It wouldn't surprise me to find that there really were 600-odd pages that used that combination of words somewhere and that those pages were excluded. Google does not make any claims ANYWHERE about transparency.