The Daily WTF: Curious Perversions in Information Technology

2013-07-31 Reply Admin

no laughing matter:
Anomaly:
Please be considerate I had a brother that was largely unscathed in a dramatic paging accident.
... and it was me!

I don't get it, people just don't find me funny anymore.

2013-07-31 Reply Admin

Irony:
People just don't find me funny anymore.

Well, people just refuse to put wear their emotions anywhere else.

2013-07-31 Reply Admin

DrPepper:
And I'm guessing the QA person (there was a QA person, right???) looked at page 1 -- OK; page 2 -- OK; page 3 --OK; Probably works for all pages. Signoff, go on to next task.
Unfortunately, QA often has limited time, and can't test EVERY page. So this code passes; and no one knows until a customer tries page 4.

So how many pages do you test before you declare that it works for all pages? 4? 5? 10? 100? 10,000? At some point you have to say, It works for every number I tested, it probably works for all numbers.

2013-07-31 Reply Admin

xaade:
Hannes:
YellowOnline:
That he ever said "640K is Enough For Anyone" was debunked so many times already...

Right or wrong, this is what he always said back in the days!

No. It should be, "Right or wrong, this is what they always quoted him saying, back in the day!"

Right or wrong precedes something that actually was done. Not something provably never done. Specifically something that has been debated before.

Right or wrong, people believe in God. Whether she is right or wrong, this is my country.

Not

Right or wrong, God exists. Right or wrong, my country invaded mars.

Hmm, both the statements make sense to me. Well, the first requires the proper context. Like:

"I can't believe in a God who would send people to Hell!"

"Well, right or wrong, God exists. The fact that you disapprove of actions attributed to him has nothing to do with his existence. I don't like the fact that a tornado could destroy my house, but that is not a proof that tornados do not exist. Not unless you have already proven that the only things that exist in the universe are things that you approve of."

"Your country is a bunch of greedy imperialists, invading every planet in the solar system!"

"Too bad. Right or wrong, my country invaded Mars. There's nothing you can do about it now."

2013-07-31 Reply Admin

jay:
DrPepper:
And I'm guessing the QA person (there was a QA person, right???) looked at page 1 -- OK; page 2 -- OK; page 3 --OK; Probably works for all pages. Signoff, go on to next task.
Unfortunately, QA often has limited time, and can't test EVERY page. So this code passes; and no one knows until a customer tries page 4.

So how many pages do you test before you declare that it works for all pages? 4? 5? 10? 100? 10,000? At some point you have to say, It works for every number I tested, it probably works for all numbers.

"And then it just floated off the planet, no reason, just off it went."

"Oh, well, we tested gravity on several planets, at some point we just assumed it worked for every amount of mass."

2013-07-31 Reply Admin

anonymous:

Made-up dinosaur facts are not really the sort of comment that I enjoy reading on TDWTF.

Those facts are made up! Wow, glad you told me that before I used them in my paleontology thesis.

2013-07-31 Reply Admin

Zylon:
Bananas:
The best algorithm is a hard-coded algorithm. No need to worry about what happens when the inputs get too large. Nope, this algorithm is guaranteed to never ever cause the application to crash and burn. Kudos to the developer who wrought this work of art!
So not only is it obtuse, it's also robust.
It's robustuse!

Except in this story, it's probably an Australopithicus Robustuse.

eViLegion · 2013-07-31 Reply Admin

xaade:
eViLegion:

Right or wrong, that is what Hannes posted back a few hours ago.

And that is the correct way to use it.

Right or wrong, that is the right way to use it, surely?

2013-07-31 Reply Admin

jay:
xaade:
Hannes:
YellowOnline:
That he ever said "640K is Enough For Anyone" was debunked so many times already...

Right or wrong, this is what he always said back in the days!

No. It should be, "Right or wrong, this is what they always quoted him saying, back in the day!"

Right or wrong precedes something that actually was done. Not something provably never done. Specifically something that has been debated before.

Right or wrong, people believe in God. Whether she is right or wrong, this is my country.

Not

Right or wrong, God exists. Right or wrong, my country invaded mars.

Hmm, both the statements make sense to me. Well, the first requires the proper context. Like:

"I can't believe in a God who would send people to Hell!"

"Well, right or wrong, God exists. The fact that you disapprove of actions attributed to him has nothing to do with his existence. I don't like the fact that a tornado could destroy my house, but that is not a proof that tornados do not exist. Not unless you have already proven that the only things that exist in the universe are things that you approve of."

"Your country is a bunch of greedy imperialists, invading every planet in the solar system!"

"Too bad. Right or wrong, my country invaded Mars. There's nothing you can do about it now."

I was assuming that God existing is a truth outside of right or wrong.

I was also assuming that our country never invaded Mars, so you can't say, right or wrong we invaded mars.

Point I'm trying to make is that you can't follow right or wrong with a lie, you can follow it with a fact whose contents are ethically debatable and it has no impact on the face.

If you say, "Right or wrong, God exists." You're not saying, "God exists or not, but assume he does." You're saying, "God's existence is morally debatable, but ignore that, I want to discuss something else."

2013-07-31 Reply Admin

RonBeck62:
YellowOnline:
That he ever said "640K is Enough For Anyone" was debunked so many times already...

More like: 640K is as much as anyone can afford right now.

You paid $100-$200 for each row of DRAM you installed. I read the computer lab copy of "Creative Computing" every month. The system prices, at a grand or so -- even for the homebrew/hobbyist systems, were a world away for someone who didn't even get an allowance. The business systems, with a VDT and a hard drive or two, were in the next galaxy at 10+ grand.

The very first memory expansion I ever bought for a home computer was 16K and it cost me $120, or over $7 per k of ram. I guess that was in the early 1980s.

My current home computer has, I think, 4GB of RAM. So in 1980s terms, I figure that's worth $28 million. I'm rich!!

Man, I don't even need to discuss the hard drive. As I recall my first hard drive was 30 MB and cost $340. There was a computer I used at work at the time that had a 5 MB hard drive. I doubt that would be large enough to hold my font files today.

2013-07-31 Reply Admin

eViLegion:
xaade:
eViLegion:

Right or wrong, that is what Hannes posted back a few hours ago.

And that is the correct way to use it.

Right or wrong, that is the right way to use it, surely?

Wrong.

"Right or wrong, I use it that way." Would be correct.

Geez, why is this so hard to understand.

eViLegion · 2013-07-31 Reply Admin

xaade:
eViLegion:
xaade:
eViLegion:

Right or wrong, that is what Hannes posted back a few hours ago.

And that is the correct way to use it.

Right or wrong, that is the right way to use it, surely?

Wrong.

"Right or wrong, I use it that way." Would be correct.

Geez, why is this so hard to understand.

I was making a point about the lack of humor in your post, rather than correcting you... I mean ultimately we're discussing a new local meme, so it's kinda irrelevant to anything which way this topic goes.

Also, notwithstanding the intentional logical error in the content of my sentence, I'm pretty sure the structure is correct, and if to disagree you're gonna have to do a better job of explaining why you disagree, or I'm going to respond 'right or wrong...' to everything you say for a month, just to be annoying.

2013-07-31 Reply Admin

xaade:
eViLegion:
xaade:
eViLegion:

Right or wrong, that is what Hannes posted back a few hours ago.

And that is the correct way to use it.

Right or wrong, that is the right way to use it, surely?

Wrong.

"Right or wrong, I use it that way." Would be correct.

Geez, why is this so hard to understand.

Because "Right or wrong" has two inherently different connotations. You can take it to mean the moral ambiguity of the statement that follows or it can simply refer to the correctness of the statment that follows.

Right or wrong, they used to do it like that. (a statement about ambiguity of morals)

Right or wrong, Clinton didn't do it. (an incorrect or wrong statement)

The difference being "Right or wrong, ... " and "Right or wrong? ... " The second usage has a ? that is understood to be there.

Right or wrong, thats how I see it.

Matt Westwood · 2013-07-31 Reply Admin

xaade:
jay:
xaade:
Hannes:
YellowOnline:
That he ever said "640K is Enough For Anyone" was debunked so many times already...

Right or wrong, this is what he always said back in the days!

No. It should be, "Right or wrong, this is what they always quoted him saying, back in the day!"

Right or wrong precedes something that actually was done. Not something provably never done. Specifically something that has been debated before.

Right or wrong, people believe in God. Whether she is right or wrong, this is my country.

Not

Right or wrong, God exists. Right or wrong, my country invaded mars.

Hmm, both the statements make sense to me. Well, the first requires the proper context. Like:

"I can't believe in a God who would send people to Hell!"

"Well, right or wrong, God exists. The fact that you disapprove of actions attributed to him has nothing to do with his existence. I don't like the fact that a tornado could destroy my house, but that is not a proof that tornados do not exist. Not unless you have already proven that the only things that exist in the universe are things that you approve of."

"Your country is a bunch of greedy imperialists, invading every planet in the solar system!"

"Too bad. Right or wrong, my country invaded Mars. There's nothing you can do about it now."

I was assuming that God existing is a truth outside of right or wrong.

I was also assuming that our country never invaded Mars, so you can't say, right or wrong we invaded mars.

Point I'm trying to make is that you can't follow right or wrong with a lie, you can follow it with a fact whose contents are ethically debatable and it has no impact on the face.

If you say, "Right or wrong, God exists." You're not saying, "God exists or not, but assume he does." You're saying, "God's existence is morally debatable, but ignore that, I want to discuss something else."

"I was assuming that God existing is a truth outside of right or wrong."

Fuck me sideways, a religious delusional fuckwit.

2013-07-31 Reply Admin

Can I get this guy's users, QA team, and/or tech support team?

Best I usually get for this type of thing is "I added a user, and it didn't show up" with no mention of how many there are in the system when the failure occurs.

chubertdev · 2013-07-31 Reply Admin

Right or wrong, the comments are really (expletive) pedantic today.

2013-07-31 Reply Admin

(expletive) pedantic

You can't cast pendantic to be of type expletive, it just doesn't work that way.

2013-07-31 Reply Admin

...unless you meant "anal"?

chubertdev · 2013-07-31 Reply Admin

Hexadecima:
(expletive) pedantic
You can't cast pendantic to be of type expletive, it just doesn't work that way.

Why not? It's not a narrowing conversion:

public class pedantic : expletive {
   ...
}

2013-07-31 Reply Admin

I was working on a fix the past hours, but the comment was too long and then firefox crashed. doh!

ImageWithLetters: saluto

SpewinCoffee · 2013-07-31 Reply Admin

Depending on the system, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the code. Let's say you maintain proprietary data and don't want some "clever" person to scrape your content and make their own service. Limiting the number of results to 75 or 300 or whatever is plenty based on whatever you want to limit the average user to have access to at any given time. And, if we're really honest with ourselves, very few real people are going to hit rational limits in the first place. Take Google, for example, when was the last time you had to navigate past page 7?

There are plenty of other valid use-cases where limiting the number of results makes sense.

chubertdev · 2013-07-31 Reply Admin

SpewinCoffee:
Depending on the system, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the code. Let's say you maintain proprietary data and don't want some "clever" person to scrape your content and make their own service. Limiting the number of results to 75 or 300 or whatever is plenty based on whatever you want to limit the average user to have access to at any given time. And, if we're really honest with ourselves, very few real people are going to hit rational limits in the first place. Take Google, for example, when was the last time you had to navigate past page 7?
There are plenty of other valid use-cases where limiting the number of results makes sense.

So your solution is to create a usability nightmare. Awesome.

2013-07-31 Reply Admin

doohrooz:
Who's going to need more than three pages of data, anyway?

Especially since everyone knows that management never looks at any data before making decisions, anyway.

2013-07-31 Reply Admin

This looks like "but it passed the test cases we have!" code.

2013-07-31 Reply Admin

Matt Westwood:

"I was assuming that God existing is a truth outside of right or wrong."

Fuck me sideways, a religious delusional fuckwit.

Did your brain shutdown.

"Right or wrong, Gravity is a stupid idea."

There's no ambiguity about gravity. It either is or isn't. It is a truth outside of moral right or wrong. Therefore the previous sentence makes no sense.

Therefore, the same applies to God. He either exists or not. To say, "right or wrong, God." makes no sense, unless you're implying that there is a moral attribute to God existing.

Besides. You can't say there is no God. You can only logically say there is no evidence of a God. Anything capable of manipulating the laws of the universe is non-provable. And we know so little of the universe.

To suggest that you know for certain there is no God is to commit intellectual blasphemy against reason. To lie to yourself.

2013-07-31 Reply Admin

xaade:
Hannes:
YellowOnline:
That he ever said "640K is Enough For Anyone" was debunked so many times already...

Right or wrong, this is what he always said back in the days!
Right or wrong, my country invaded mars.

And that's why I'm here, a refugee from my ruined, war-torn homeland.

2013-07-31 Reply Admin

jay:
anonymous:

Made-up dinosaur facts are not really the sort of comment that I enjoy reading on TDWTF.

Those facts are made up! Wow, glad you told me that before I used them in my paleontology thesis.

The Archaeopteryx fact is true. They used both wings, their beaks, and one leg to achieve those speeds.

2013-07-31 Reply Admin

This is as close as it gets: "I have to say that in 1981, making those decisions, I felt like I was providing enough freedom for 10 years. That is, a move from 64k to 640k felt like something that would last a great deal of time. Well, it didn't - it took about only 6 years before people started to see that as a real problem."

-Bill Gates, 1989 speech on the history of the microcomputer industry.

2013-07-31 Reply Admin

Friedrice The Great:
jay:
anonymous:

Made-up dinosaur facts are not really the sort of comment that I enjoy reading on TDWTF.

Those facts are made up! Wow, glad you told me that before I used them in my paleontology thesis.
The Archaeopteryx fact is true. They used both wings, their beaks, and one leg to achieve those speeds.

Nobody is wondering why dinosaurs are using keyboards optimized for humans millions of years before humans existed?

Or did dinosaurs and humans co-exist?

Baffling...

new Pedantic("Right or wrong," + new Expletive("the hiding funny") + in html comments is funny."); // Unicorns can simply walk into Mordor.

2013-07-31 Reply Admin

steenbergh:
That's not a 'curious perversion', that's just plain wrong.

That all depends on what you do with the pages.

2013-07-31 Reply Admin

Anomaly:
xaade:
eViLegion:
Right or wrong, that is the right way to use it, surely?
Wrong.
"Right or wrong, I use it that way." Would be correct.

Geez, why is this so hard to understand.
Because "Right or wrong" has two inherently different connotations.

Right.

"Right or wrong" has two different connotations. One is right. One is wrong.

Therefore "right or wrong" is right AND wrong.

2013-07-31 Reply Admin

anonymous:

Made-up dinosaur facts are not really the sort of comment that I enjoy reading on TDWTF.

so don't read the comment. Simples.

2013-07-31 Reply Admin

chubertdev:
SpewinCoffee:
Depending on the system, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the code. Let's say you maintain proprietary data and don't want some "clever" person to scrape your content and make their own service. Limiting the number of results to 75 or 300 or whatever is plenty based on whatever you want to limit the average user to have access to at any given time. And, if we're really honest with ourselves, very few real people are going to hit rational limits in the first place. Take Google, for example, when was the last time you had to navigate past page 7?
There are plenty of other valid use-cases where limiting the number of results makes sense.

So your solution is to create a usability nightmare. Awesome.

How is it a usability nighmare? I'll grant that maybe 75 is a low end to cut thins off, but I don't really see an issue with cutting off results if they're too large - the user should be trying to narrow the search in that case anyway...

2013-07-31 Reply Admin

Hi,

Norman Diamond:
"Right or wrong" has two different connotations. One is right. One is wrong.
Therefore "right or wrong" is right AND wrong.

No!

"Right or wrong" means that if either right is true or wrong is true, then the entire statement is true.

"Right and wrong" means that if either right is false or wrong is false, then the entire statement is false.

"Right or wrong" is equivalent to "Not (right and wrong)".

Brendan
Brendan

2013-07-31 Reply Admin

Something tells me we'll be seeing Brendan's code featured on here one of these days. A Or B is most definitely not equivalent to Not(A And B).

2013-07-31 Reply Admin

Brendan:
No!
"Right or wrong" means that if either right is true or wrong is true, then the entire statement is true.

"Right and wrong" means that if either right is false or wrong is false, then the entire statement is false.

"Right or wrong" is equivalent to "Not (right and wrong)".

Something tells me we'll be seeing Brendan's code featured on here one of these days. A Or B is most definitely not equivalent to Not(A And B).

2013-07-31 Reply Admin

xaade:
DrPepper:
And I'm guessing the QA person (there was a QA person, right???) looked at page 1 -- OK; page 2 -- OK; page 3 --OK; Probably works for all pages. Signoff, go on to next task.
Unfortunately, QA often has limited time, and can't test EVERY page. So this code passes; and no one knows until a customer tries page 4.
And how would you know it couldn't be more than 4 if your testing environment didn't have more than 75 records.

And how would QA know on a testing environment with more than 75 records, if QA didn't anticipate stupid and always put some amount of search criteria.

And how would QA know if they left off search criteria and the result reported no more than 75 entries, if QA wasn't tracking how many entries existed.

And how would QA know if there wasn't more than 65535 pages?

Chelloveck:
Where's the WTF?
Bug closed. WORKS PER DESIGN

TRWTF:

stew:

TRWTF is DRY.

¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL:

switch((int)$_GET['page']){
  case 2: $limit = 25;$this_page = 2;$prev = 1;$next = 3;break;
  case 3: $limit = 50;$this_page = 3;$prev = 2;$next = 3;break;
  default:$limit = 0;$this_page = 1;$prev = 1;$next = 2;break;
}

There, FTFY.

switch((int)$_GET['page']){
  case 2: $limit = '25, 50';$this_page = 2;$prev = 1;$next = 3;break;
  case 3: $limit = '50, 75';$this_page = 3;$prev = 2;$next = 3;break;
  default:$limit = '0, 25';$this_page = 1;$prev = 1;$next = 2;break;
}

This should also have variables $limit_min and $limit_max parsed to a function than ensure their values are filtered for the SQL DB.

Image-captcha-still-2003: abbas is Medieval Latin for "abbot", and is an element in a number of place names in England. Abbas is a common Islamic name, and is an element in a number of place names in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

2013-07-31 Reply Admin

Hi,

mara:
Brendan:
No!
"Right or wrong" means that if either right is true or wrong is true, then the entire statement is true.

"Right and wrong" means that if either right is false or wrong is false, then the entire statement is false.

"Right or wrong" is equivalent to "Not (right and wrong)".

Something tells me we'll be seeing Brendan's code featured on here one of these days. A Or B is most definitely not equivalent to Not(A And B).

No!

It's an easily verified fact that "Right or wrong" is equivalent to "Not (right and wrong)".

true or false = true not(true and false) = not(false) = true

Exactly the same.

Brendan

2013-07-31 Reply Admin

Back in those days, a paging algorithm was a way to beep your pager so you would go to a land line and call in.

captcha: ratis ratis as ratdoes

Matt Westwood · 2013-08-01 Reply Admin

SpewinCoffee:
Depending on the system, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the code. Let's say you maintain proprietary data and don't want some "clever" person to scrape your content and make their own service. Limiting the number of results to 75 or 300 or whatever is plenty based on whatever you want to limit the average user to have access to at any given time. And, if we're really honest with ourselves, very few real people are going to hit rational limits in the first place. Take Google, for example, when was the last time you had to navigate past page 7?
There are plenty of other valid use-cases where limiting the number of results makes sense.

When I was trying to find the real name of a certain obscure death-metaller in the Stockholm scene some years back I had to page through a large number of pages before I hit the paydirt for which I was hunting. So it does happen.

Matt Westwood · 2013-08-01 Reply Admin

xaade:
Matt Westwood:

"I was assuming that God existing is a truth outside of right or wrong."

Fuck me sideways, a religious delusional fuckwit.

Did your brain shutdown.

"Right or wrong, Gravity is a stupid idea."

There's no ambiguity about gravity. It either is or isn't. It is a truth outside of moral right or wrong. Therefore the previous sentence makes no sense.

Therefore, the same applies to God. He either exists or not. To say, "right or wrong, God." makes no sense, unless you're implying that there is a moral attribute to God existing.

Besides. You can't say there is no God. You can only logically say there is no evidence of a God. Anything capable of manipulating the laws of the universe is non-provable. And we know so little of the universe.

To suggest that you know for certain there is no God is to commit intellectual blasphemy against reason. To lie to yourself.

To suggest that God exists is either madness, stupidity or evil. God is a lie made up by fascists to control the intellectually subnormal and emotional cripples.

2013-08-01 Reply Admin

xaade:
Hannes:
YellowOnline:
That he ever said "640K is Enough For Anyone" was debunked so many times already...

Right or wrong, this is what he always said back in the days!

No. It should be, "Right or wrong, this is what they always quoted him saying, back in the day!"

Right or wrong precedes something that actually was done. Not something provably never done. Specifically something that has been debated before.

Right or wrong, people believe in God. Whether she is right or wrong, this is my country.

Not

Right or wrong, God exists. Right or wrong, my country invaded mars.

Right or wrong, this is how I use the meme anyway!

NMe · 2013-08-01 Reply Admin

Catprog:
NMe:
Still makes you wonder why the user got 75 records when from the look of it this code should only give the first 30.

50+25 = 75

The article was changed. It said 0, 10 and 20 at first, not 0, 25 and 50. :)

operagost · 2013-08-01 Reply Admin

Matt Westwood:
xaade:
jay:
xaade:
Hannes:
YellowOnline:
That he ever said "640K is Enough For Anyone" was debunked so many times already...

Right or wrong, this is what he always said back in the days!

No. It should be, "Right or wrong, this is what they always quoted him saying, back in the day!"

Right or wrong precedes something that actually was done. Not something provably never done. Specifically something that has been debated before.

Right or wrong, people believe in God. Whether she is right or wrong, this is my country.

Not

Right or wrong, God exists. Right or wrong, my country invaded mars.

Hmm, both the statements make sense to me. Well, the first requires the proper context. Like:

"I can't believe in a God who would send people to Hell!"

"Well, right or wrong, God exists. The fact that you disapprove of actions attributed to him has nothing to do with his existence. I don't like the fact that a tornado could destroy my house, but that is not a proof that tornados do not exist. Not unless you have already proven that the only things that exist in the universe are things that you approve of."

"Your country is a bunch of greedy imperialists, invading every planet in the solar system!"

"Too bad. Right or wrong, my country invaded Mars. There's nothing you can do about it now."

I was assuming that God existing is a truth outside of right or wrong.

I was also assuming that our country never invaded Mars, so you can't say, right or wrong we invaded mars.

Point I'm trying to make is that you can't follow right or wrong with a lie, you can follow it with a fact whose contents are ethically debatable and it has no impact on the face.

If you say, "Right or wrong, God exists." You're not saying, "God exists or not, but assume he does." You're saying, "God's existence is morally debatable, but ignore that, I want to discuss something else."

"I was assuming that God existing is a truth outside of right or wrong."

Fuck me sideways, a religious delusional fuckwit.

I'm sorry to hear you're a religious, delusional fuckwit.

operagost · 2013-08-01 Reply Admin

Matt Westwood:
xaade:
Matt Westwood:

"I was assuming that God existing is a truth outside of right or wrong."

Fuck me sideways, a religious delusional fuckwit.

Did your brain shutdown.

"Right or wrong, Gravity is a stupid idea."

There's no ambiguity about gravity. It either is or isn't. It is a truth outside of moral right or wrong. Therefore the previous sentence makes no sense.

Therefore, the same applies to God. He either exists or not. To say, "right or wrong, God." makes no sense, unless you're implying that there is a moral attribute to God existing.

Besides. You can't say there is no God. You can only logically say there is no evidence of a God. Anything capable of manipulating the laws of the universe is non-provable. And we know so little of the universe.

To suggest that you know for certain there is no God is to commit intellectual blasphemy against reason. To lie to yourself.

To suggest that God exists is either madness, stupidity or evil. God is a lie made up by fascists to control the intellectually subnormal and emotional cripples.

Go home, Karl Marx-- you're drunk.

2013-08-01 Reply Admin

xaade:
You can only logically say there is no evidence of a God.

I know, right?! The list of things that have no evidence of existing but that can't be demonstrably proved to not exist is _so_ long and just getting longer. Consequently, the only rational conclusion I've reached is that we're clearly all safest if we just huddle in our closets, preferably with a warm blankie.

Kivi · 2013-08-01 Reply Admin

mara:
A Or B is most definitely not equivalent to Not(A And B).

It is, when B == Not(A). Right or wrong, we happen to be discussing a special case.

chubertdev · 2013-08-01 Reply Admin

Bingo Bango Bongola:
chubertdev:
SpewinCoffee:
Depending on the system, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the code. Let's say you maintain proprietary data and don't want some "clever" person to scrape your content and make their own service. Limiting the number of results to 75 or 300 or whatever is plenty based on whatever you want to limit the average user to have access to at any given time. And, if we're really honest with ourselves, very few real people are going to hit rational limits in the first place. Take Google, for example, when was the last time you had to navigate past page 7?
There are plenty of other valid use-cases where limiting the number of results makes sense.

So your solution is to create a usability nightmare. Awesome.
How is it a usability nighmare? I'll grant that maybe 75 is a low end to cut thins off, but I don't really see an issue with cutting off results if they're too large - the user should be trying to narrow the search in that case anyway...

It frustrates the user. There's no message telling the user why it only has three pages (which is honestly, because the developer was an idiot). But if you're going to do it on purpose, at least tell them why.

If you don't see an issue with this, then you don't know the first thing about usability.

Please read Don't Make Me Think by Steve Krug and The Humane Interface by Jef Raskin, then come back to me and talk bout usability.

2013-08-01 Reply Admin

There are four!

2013-08-01 Reply Admin

God existed once, but he disappeared in a puff of logic.

The Page at Fault

Leave a comment on “The Page at Fault”