• Anon (unregistered)

    Not a really stupid 1st comment for a change

  • Trevor D'Arcy-Evans (unregistered)

    That's not a comment, THIS is a comment!

  • Pippo (unregistered)

    Stupid me, I thought car insurances in Italy were expensive.

  • tom (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.
  • faoileag (unregistered)

    [quote user="Joerg T"]I thought that I knew a thing or two about subpixels, but Google has proven to me that there are some subtle differences that I was not aware of,[quote]. Like, the difference between the words "matrix" and "geometry" in a search query. You can reproduce the different results by exchanging the one with the other.

    This is not a WTF but simply Google applying its algorithm to two different sets of words.

  • ochrist (cs)

    Perhaps the insurance premium was in Italian lire?

  • Loyal reader (unregistered)

    I love this site more than you can imagine, but .....

    Error'd: Please. Stop.

  • Rnd( (unregistered)

    I do love the honesty of error message. Cleary the maker understand how stupid the situation is, but there is nothing is allowed to fix it.

    This could have been WTF on it's own...

  • faoileag (unregistered) in reply to ochrist
    ochrist:
    Perhaps the insurance premium was in Italian lire?
    Even then it would be rather hefty; the exchange rate was 1936 lira for 1 euro. With appr. 348 billion euros p.A. insurance premium your driving history must be quite interesting! ;-)
  • TDWTF123 (cs)

    The first one (Google) isn't a WTF at all. It's not a correction, just a suggestion based on what people have searched for and then changed their search to. Perhaps 'did you mean ... ?' isn't the best way to present it, but it's a very reasonable thing for Google to do.

  • N/A (unregistered) in reply to TDWTF123

    Perhaps; but as you said; "did you mean" is not the best way to present such. And believe it or not, but google is used by normal human beings who think that "did you mean" means "did you mean [x] instead of [y]", rather then "according to our algorithm, more people looked for $otherwayoftypingx instead of x", or whatever it implies.

    A similar thing applies looking for 'alternative' (alt) or 'tablature' (tab). Sometimes, you want the 'tablature' without the 'tab' because otherwise you'll find too much 'alt' 'tab'.. But no; google noticed these two can be used interchangably and now I'll have to wade through a boatload of computer documentation for dummies to google search my alternative tablatures.

    (don't bother with suggesting using a different search engine, I already do.

  • Muzer (unregistered) in reply to N/A

    "alternative" "tablature"

  • miquelfire (cs)

    The album cover error must be Pandora. I been seeing mis matched covers every so often for a while now.

  • John Kramer (unregistered)

    Hello Christopher, I want to play a game...

  • Coyne (cs) in reply to faoileag
    faoileag:
    ochrist:
    Perhaps the insurance premium was in Italian lire?
    Even then it would be rather hefty; the exchange rate was 1936 lira for 1 euro. With appr. 348 billion euros p.A. insurance premium your driving history must be quite interesting! ;-)

    Well, that's what happens when you are texting and accidentally run off the road and wipe out Earth.

  • Ben Jammin (unregistered)

    Movie cover memory is a great way to help kids develop while also brainwashing them.

  • TheSoftwareDev (cs)

    I'm not sure if I'm more amused by the dev who coded the magazine subscription error, or disappointed in the one who designed the spec.

  • RichP (cs)

    Joerg's problem isn't the space/no space in "sub pixels", there's a sub pixel difference between "sub pixels" and "sub pixels".

    Can't you see it? Just "Enhance".

  • Zecc (cs) in reply to Loyal reader
    Loyal reader:
    I love this site more than you can imagine, but .....

    Error'd: Please. Stop.

    Why? Do you only realize it's an Error'd after you stop reading?

  • golddog (unregistered)

    I used to work at CDS, which is the fulfillment house processing John's magazine subscription.

    I don't recall us having those kinds of error messages, though. The guys must've enhanced things since I left.

  • xaade (cs) in reply to Zecc
    Zecc:
    Loyal reader:
    I love this site more than you can imagine, but .....

    Error'd: Please. Stop.

    Why? Do you only realize it's an Error'd after you stop reading?

    No, he just hasn't yet realized he isn't the only person in the world.

    Slightly more serious. He loads up TDWTF and sees and Error'd and feels the day didn't provide an article to his satisfaction.

    Even more serious. Maybe someone can volunteer to help run the site so we can have a TDWTF for each category (interview, error, code).

    Even more serious. Stop reading and get to work!

  • HowItWorks (unregistered)
    "Groupon sure has a generous definition of what 'Limited' really means," wrote Stephen.
    The extended "Limit" is a minor wtf in that image.

    Being charged to JUMP! WTF! And is it that a bowling alley where they are jumping? Is that something unique to Kansas City, or is the associated general insanity of Jumping rooms available in other parts of the world?

  • Norman Diamond (unregistered) in reply to xaade
    xaade:
    Zecc:
    Loyal reader:
    I love this site more than you can imagine, but .....

    Error'd: Please. Stop.

    Why? Do you only realize it's an Error'd after you stop reading?
    No, he just hasn't yet realized he isn't the only person in the world.
    We all hate the WTF errors, so Loyal Reader tries to shoot the messenger.

    Or Loyal Reader thinks this is a support site so this site can make the WTF developers stop producing WTF errors.

  • Foo Bar (unregistered) in reply to HowItWorks

    Yes, the picture of Cosmic Jump looks like a bowling alley. But those are actually trampolines, that bend from the floor up on to the side walls.

  • Norman Diamond (unregistered) in reply to faoileag
    faoileag:
    With appr. 348 billion euros p.A. insurance premium your driving history must be quite interesting! ;-)
    It's the car's history not the driver. Tepco used it to transport designs for nuclear power plants.
  • ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL (unregistered)
    Your cover starts at 9:00AM on mercoledi, 15 maggio 2013.
    TRWTF is mixing two languages in the same sentence.
    Tosaíonn Do chlúdach ag 9:00 ar Dé Céadaoin 15 Bealtaine, 2013.
    That's better.
  • Norman Diamond (unregistered) in reply to ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL
    ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL:
    Your cover starts at 9:00AM on mercoledi, 15 maggio 2013.
    TRWTF is mixing two languages in the same sentence.
    The insurance company's message was in English only. Are you saying that TRWTF was that they used a <gasp>library</gasp>[*] to handle times and dates?

    [*<choke>an i18n'ed library?</choke>]

  • DCRoss (cs) in reply to Foo Bar
    Foo Bar:
    Yes, the picture of Cosmic Jump looks like a bowling alley. But those are actually trampolines, that bend from the floor up on to the side walls.

    Hmmm... Bowling... On a trampoline...

    I think I may have just come up with the next Olympic demonstration sport.

  • Craig (unregistered)

    I love the error message on the magazine subscription site. Some poor developer was probably given that ridiculous Catch-22 business rule. He likely tried to explain the situation to the business person who just didn't get the simple concept. So he did the only thing he could do, implement the requirement and provide an error message that indicated his confusion as to the stupidity of the rule.

  • C-Derb (unregistered) in reply to Zecc
    Zecc:
    Loyal reader:
    I love this site more than you can imagine, but .....

    Error'd: Please. Stop.

    Why? Do you only realize it's an Error'd after you stop reading?
    Error'd has been showing up on Fridays for quite some time now, so maybe just look at the calendar first.

  • eViLegion (cs) in reply to Loyal reader
    Loyal reader:
    I love this site more than you can imagine, but .....

    Error'd: Please. Stop.

    Yes.

  • C-Derb (unregistered) in reply to Craig
    Craig:
    I love the error message on the magazine subscription site. Some poor developer was probably given that ridiculous Catch-22 business rule. He likely tried to explain the situation to the business person who just didn't get the simple concept. So he did the only thing he could do, implement the requirement and provide an error message that indicated his confusion as to the stupidity of the rule.
    I'm calling either shenanigans or TRWTF here. I think "John R." just edited the html of the page before taking a screenshot because I'm not buying that error message making it past QA. If the developer knew that requirement would lead to that error message, then surely QA tested for that scenario and reported that the error message was way too "thou shalt not lie", even for Christianity Today standards.

    So either it is bogus, or TRWTF is ChristianityToday.com's QA people.

    Oh screw it, TRWTF is QA.

  • ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL (unregistered) in reply to Norman Diamond
    Norman Diamond:
    The insurance company's message was in English only.
    So you're telling me that "mercoledi" and "maggio" are English?

    And as it's a site for insurance in Ireland, the obvious choice for a common language was Irish.

  • Dan (unregistered) in reply to C-Derb
    C-Derb:
    So either it is bogus, or TRWTF is ChristianityToday.com's QA people.

    What makes you think they have QA people?

  • C-Derb (unregistered) in reply to Dan
    Dan:
    C-Derb:
    So either it is bogus, or TRWTF is ChristianityToday.com's QA people.

    What makes you think they have QA people?

    If they don't, does that change my statement?

  • The spec is perfect (unregistered) in reply to Dan
    Dan:
    C-Derb:
    So either it is bogus, or TRWTF is ChristianityToday.com's QA people.

    What makes you think they have QA people?

    What makes you think that's not what the spec called for?

  • Edward Sargisson (unregistered)

    The Netflix one is probably that a circuit breaker fired on whatever service displays images.

    In other words, they have a very complex and interesting system for managing their availability and you happened to catch it in action.

    If you'd refreshed it probably would have appeared correctly.

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to C-Derb
    C-Derb:
    Craig:
    I love the error message on the magazine subscription site. Some poor developer was probably given that ridiculous Catch-22 business rule. He likely tried to explain the situation to the business person who just didn't get the simple concept. So he did the only thing he could do, implement the requirement and provide an error message that indicated his confusion as to the stupidity of the rule.
    I'm calling either shenanigans or TRWTF here. I think "John R." just edited the html of the page before taking a screenshot because I'm not buying that error message making it past QA. If the developer knew that requirement would lead to that error message, then surely QA tested for that scenario and reported that the error message was way too "thou shalt not lie", even for Christianity Today standards.

    So either it is bogus, or TRWTF is ChristianityToday.com's QA people.

    Oh screw it, TRWTF is QA.

    Actually, I think what happened is that the user logged in with his valid e-mail address, and when adding the subscription some database failure caused the server to think he had no valid email address.

    So the error message explains "You need a valid email address, but you obviously have one since you are here and you can only be here if you have a valid email address." Which explains the suggestion to try again. "I don't know what went wrong, but maybe if you try again it'll work?"

  • chubertdev (cs) in reply to N/A
    N/A:
    Perhaps; but as you said; "did you mean" is not the best way to present such. And believe it or not, but google is used by normal human beings who think that "did you mean" means "did you mean [x] instead of [y]", rather then "according to our algorithm, more people looked for $otherwayoftypingx instead of x", or whatever it implies.

    A similar thing applies looking for 'alternative' (alt) or 'tablature' (tab). Sometimes, you want the 'tablature' without the 'tab' because otherwise you'll find too much 'alt' 'tab'.. But no; google noticed these two can be used interchangably and now I'll have to wade through a boatload of computer documentation for dummies to google search my alternative tablatures.

    (don't bother with suggesting using a different search engine, I already do.

    "People also searched for"

  • DaveK (cs) in reply to faoileag
    faoileag:
    ochrist:
    Perhaps the insurance premium was in Italian lire?
    Even then it would be rather hefty; the exchange rate was 1936 lira for 1 euro. With appr. 348 billion euros p.A. insurance premium your driving history must be quite interesting! ;-)
    Except that Ireland, like England, uses commas for number grouping and dots for the decimal point. So that's not an amount of money, it's a version number!
  • jay (unregistered) in reply to C-Derb
    C-Derb:
    Craig:
    I love the error message on the magazine subscription site. Some poor developer was probably given that ridiculous Catch-22 business rule. He likely tried to explain the situation to the business person who just didn't get the simple concept. So he did the only thing he could do, implement the requirement and provide an error message that indicated his confusion as to the stupidity of the rule.
    I'm calling either shenanigans or TRWTF here. I think "John R." just edited the html of the page before taking a screenshot because I'm not buying that error message making it past QA. If the developer knew that requirement would lead to that error message, then surely QA tested for that scenario and reported that the error message was way too "thou shalt not lie", even for Christianity Today standards.

    So either it is bogus, or TRWTF is ChristianityToday.com's QA people.

    Oh screw it, TRWTF is QA.

    If there's such a catch-22 in the system, then it's quite possible that that scenario isn't even mentioned in the specs. In which case it would not be surprising if the QA team never tested for it, as the QA team should be working from the specs.

    Or maybe they did test it and they appreciated the humor of the situation.

    I don't see how you could say that it's so impossible that the story must be a fraud. When I worked for the Air Force I put equally frivolous error messages in systems that made it to production.

  • da Doctah (cs) in reply to DaveK
    DaveK:
    Ireland, like England, uses commas for number grouping and dots for the decimal point. So that's not an amount of money, it's a version number!
    I thought it was an IPv7 address.
  • xaade (cs) in reply to jay
    jay:
    C-Derb:
    Craig:
    I love the error message on the magazine subscription site. Some poor developer was probably given that ridiculous Catch-22 business rule. He likely tried to explain the situation to the business person who just didn't get the simple concept. So he did the only thing he could do, implement the requirement and provide an error message that indicated his confusion as to the stupidity of the rule.
    I'm calling either shenanigans or TRWTF here. I think "John R." just edited the html of the page before taking a screenshot because I'm not buying that error message making it past QA. If the developer knew that requirement would lead to that error message, then surely QA tested for that scenario and reported that the error message was way too "thou shalt not lie", even for Christianity Today standards.

    So either it is bogus, or TRWTF is ChristianityToday.com's QA people.

    Oh screw it, TRWTF is QA.

    If there's such a catch-22 in the system, then it's quite possible that that scenario isn't even mentioned in the specs. In which case it would not be surprising if the QA team never tested for it, as the QA team should be working from the specs.

    Or maybe they did test it and they appreciated the humor of the situation.

    I don't see how you could say that it's so impossible that the story must be a fraud. When I worked for the Air Force I put equally frivolous error messages in systems that made it to production.

    Buzz, Wrong answer, try again.

    QA should be doing whatever random things they don't expect a sane person to do, and see if it breaks.

    Programmers should test according to specs, that's called unit testing.

    QA should never see a spec, they should be told to load program and do whatever it takes to break it.

  • erat (unregistered) in reply to xaade
    xaade:
    jay:
    C-Derb:
    Craig:
    I love the error message on the magazine subscription site. Some poor developer was probably given that ridiculous Catch-22 business rule. He likely tried to explain the situation to the business person who just didn't get the simple concept. So he did the only thing he could do, implement the requirement and provide an error message that indicated his confusion as to the stupidity of the rule.
    I'm calling either shenanigans or TRWTF here. I think "John R." just edited the html of the page before taking a screenshot because I'm not buying that error message making it past QA. If the developer knew that requirement would lead to that error message, then surely QA tested for that scenario and reported that the error message was way too "thou shalt not lie", even for Christianity Today standards.

    So either it is bogus, or TRWTF is ChristianityToday.com's QA people.

    Oh screw it, TRWTF is QA.

    If there's such a catch-22 in the system, then it's quite possible that that scenario isn't even mentioned in the specs. In which case it would not be surprising if the QA team never tested for it, as the QA team should be working from the specs.

    Or maybe they did test it and they appreciated the humor of the situation.

    I don't see how you could say that it's so impossible that the story must be a fraud. When I worked for the Air Force I put equally frivolous error messages in systems that made it to production.

    Buzz, Wrong answer, try again.

    QA should be doing whatever random things they don't expect a sane person to do, and see if it breaks.

    Programmers should test according to specs, that's called unit testing.

    QA should never see a spec, they should be told to load program and do whatever it takes to break it.

    TRWTF is assuming some probably non-profit, but certainly non-IT centric organization is going to have a QA department.

  • n_slash_a (unregistered) in reply to DCRoss
    DCRoss:
    Foo Bar:
    Yes, the picture of Cosmic Jump looks like a bowling alley. But those are actually trampolines, that bend from the floor up on to the side walls.

    Hmmm... Bowling... On a trampoline...

    I think I may have just come up with the next Olympic demonstration sport.

    The best part of those places is playing dodgeball on trampolines. THAT would be fun to see at the Olympics.
  • Saw it in the rear view mirror (unregistered) in reply to faoileag

    He was the one driving the European economy. I don't think he'll ever live it down.

  • coyo (unregistered) in reply to faoileag

    In Polish Zloty cira 1992, that would have come out to about $3,600 which is still rather pricy.

    captcha : ullamcorper - lame crop rule

  • urza9814 (unregistered) in reply to xaade
    xaade:
    jay:
    C-Derb:
    Craig:
    I love the error message on the magazine subscription site. Some poor developer was probably given that ridiculous Catch-22 business rule. He likely tried to explain the situation to the business person who just didn't get the simple concept. So he did the only thing he could do, implement the requirement and provide an error message that indicated his confusion as to the stupidity of the rule.
    I'm calling either shenanigans or TRWTF here. I think "John R." just edited the html of the page before taking a screenshot because I'm not buying that error message making it past QA. If the developer knew that requirement would lead to that error message, then surely QA tested for that scenario and reported that the error message was way too "thou shalt not lie", even for Christianity Today standards.

    So either it is bogus, or TRWTF is ChristianityToday.com's QA people.

    Oh screw it, TRWTF is QA.

    If there's such a catch-22 in the system, then it's quite possible that that scenario isn't even mentioned in the specs. In which case it would not be surprising if the QA team never tested for it, as the QA team should be working from the specs.

    Or maybe they did test it and they appreciated the humor of the situation.

    I don't see how you could say that it's so impossible that the story must be a fraud. When I worked for the Air Force I put equally frivolous error messages in systems that made it to production.

    Buzz, Wrong answer, try again.

    QA should be doing whatever random things they don't expect a sane person to do, and see if it breaks.

    Programmers should test according to specs, that's called unit testing.

    QA should never see a spec, they should be told to load program and do whatever it takes to break it.

    And how is QA supposed to know if it is functioning correctly if they don't know what it's supposed to do?

  • Kuba (cs) in reply to faoileag
    faoileag:
    ochrist:
    Perhaps the insurance premium was in Italian lire?
    Even then it would be rather hefty; the exchange rate was 1936 lira for 1 euro. With appr. 348 billion euros p.A. insurance premium your driving history must be quite interesting! ;-)
    Yeah, it looks like he has rammed a truck transporting a nuclear warhead. It subsequently detonated, but he has lived to tell the tale anyway.
  • Kuba (cs) in reply to ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL
    ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL:
    Norman Diamond:
    The insurance company's message was in English only.
    So you're telling me that "mercoledi" and "maggio" are English?

    And as it's a site for insurance in Ireland, the obvious choice for a common language was Irish.

    They have just moved there, most likely from Italy, and their browser was likely set to prefer Italian language content. Most likely it was all a default setting that propagated from an Italian-localized version of Windows. Whatever date formatting library the website was using picked up the first element from the Accept-Language header in the http request.

Leave a comment on “A Pixel of a Different Color”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article