Prev: Using the `in` operator with host objects
Next: Function.prototype does not work
From: Scott Sauyet on 18 May 2010 22:32
David Mark wrote:
> Helbrax wrote:
>> On May 18, 9:47 am, Scott Sauyet <scott.sau...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Yes, good catch.  They defined a plug-in before the library into which
>>> it plugs in.  Can I assume that you reported this to the site owner so
>>> they can fix it?
>
>> At the risk of sounding like a jerk, the web site owner probably
>> wouldn't understand the problem in the first place.  Most of the folks
>> I've worked with that "judiciously" chose JQuery know less about
>> javascript than I do(and that's saying a lot ;)).
>
> Exactly.  And you don't sound like a jerk.  No need to tiptoe around the
> obvious.  The query was clearly baiting.

It was, and I offer a half-hearted apology. I think posting your
critique is a little silly if it's not paired with an actual attempt
to help.

But there was no reason for me to call you out on it. Everyone here
probably knew that you didn't bother.

--
Scott
From: Scott Sauyet on 18 May 2010 22:35
David Mark wrote:
> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>> On May 17, 11:55 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The site thereifixedit.com, which is apparently a tribute to the wonders
>>> of duct tape was just mentioned on TV.  I tried it and:-
>>> [ ... ]
>> They defined a plug-in before the library into which
>> it plugs in.
>
> And the failure was immediate.  Wonder how they missed it.
>
>> Can I assume that you reported this to the site owner so
>> they can fix it?
>
> Of course not.  If their developers can't be bothered to do even the
> most superficial testing, it's hardly my problem.  And who would I
> report it to anyway?  Customer service?  Do you really think they'd have
> any idea what I was talking about?  I've been down that road many times..
>   It's a waste of time.
>
> Can I presume that you reported it to the site owners?  :)

I did before I responded the first time. I got a nice response from
customer service saying that they'd pass it on to the developers. I
haven't followed it up.

-- Scott
From: David Mark on 18 May 2010 22:39
Scott Sauyet wrote:
> David Mark wrote:
>> Helbrax wrote:
>>> On May 18, 9:47 am, Scott Sauyet <scott.sau...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Yes, good catch. They defined a plug-in before the library into which
>>>> it plugs in. Can I assume that you reported this to the site owner so
>>>> they can fix it?
>>> At the risk of sounding like a jerk, the web site owner probably
>>> wouldn't understand the problem in the first place. Most of the folks
>>> I've worked with that "judiciously" chose JQuery know less about
>>> javascript than I do(and that's saying a lot ;)).
>> Exactly. And you don't sound like a jerk. No need to tiptoe around the
>> obvious. The query was clearly baiting.
>
> It was, and I offer a half-hearted apology.

I half-heartedly accept.

> I think posting your
> critique is a little silly if it's not paired with an actual attempt
> to help.

Not really. There are new people in this group every day. Recently one
asked specifically about jQuery and why it was constantly panned in
here. I do what I can to point out the follies out there.

>
> But there was no reason for me to call you out on it. Everyone here
> probably knew that you didn't bother.
>

But the implication seems to be that I never bother, which is patently
untrue. I've reported lots of bugs in sites (as well as libraries) over
the years. I've found that such reports often go unheeded and responses
run the range from total ignorance to open hostility. It's just not
worth my time (particularly these days). Now, if you pay me to do it... ;)
From: David Mark on 18 May 2010 22:40
Scott Sauyet wrote:
> David Mark wrote:
>> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>>> On May 17, 11:55 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The site thereifixedit.com, which is apparently a tribute to the wonders
>>>> of duct tape was just mentioned on TV. I tried it and:-
>>>> [ ... ]
>>> They defined a plug-in before the library into which
>>> it plugs in.
>> And the failure was immediate. Wonder how they missed it.
>>
>>> Can I assume that you reported this to the site owner so
>>> they can fix it?
>> Of course not. If their developers can't be bothered to do even the
>> most superficial testing, it's hardly my problem. And who would I
>> report it to anyway? Customer service? Do you really think they'd have
>> any idea what I was talking about? I've been down that road many times.
>> It's a waste of time.
>>
>> Can I presume that you reported it to the site owners? :)
>
> I did before I responded the first time. I got a nice response from
> customer service saying that they'd pass it on to the developers. I
> haven't followed it up.
>

Good for you. And I don't mean that in an ironic sense. Don't hold
your breath on it getting fixed though.

But who knows? Maybe they are one in a million. I just don't like
those odds.
From: David Mark on 18 May 2010 22:42
David Mark wrote:
> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>> David Mark wrote:
>>> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>>>> On May 17, 11:55 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> The site thereifixedit.com, which is apparently a tribute to the wonders
>>>>> of duct tape was just mentioned on TV. I tried it and:-
>>>>> [ ... ]
>>>> They defined a plug-in before the library into which
>>>> it plugs in.
>>> And the failure was immediate. Wonder how they missed it.
>>>
>>>> Can I assume that you reported this to the site owner so
>>>> they can fix it?
>>> Of course not. If their developers can't be bothered to do even the
>>> most superficial testing, it's hardly my problem. And who would I
>>> report it to anyway? Customer service? Do you really think they'd have
>>> any idea what I was talking about? I've been down that road many times.
>>> It's a waste of time.
>>>
>>> Can I presume that you reported it to the site owners? :)
>> I did before I responded the first time. I got a nice response from
>> customer service saying that they'd pass it on to the developers. I
>> haven't followed it up.
>>
>
> Good for you. And I don't mean that in an ironic sense. Don't hold
> your breath on it getting fixed though.
>
> But who knows? Maybe they are one in a million. I just don't like
> those odds.

And, as an aside, do you not see the cause and effect at work here? I
reported the problem, which resulted in you taking action. That's also
how I managed to fix a lot of problems in jQuery without actually having
to go through the headaches of dealing with its developers.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Using the `in` operator with host objects
Next: Function.prototype does not work