Pick On Yahoo! Day

Well, it wasn’t supposed to be a pick on Yahoo! day, but I’ve realized that I have a trilogy of separate bugs based on Yahoo! Web sites or applications, so I’ve decided to roll them up into a single post.

More Yahoo! Finance fun. I posted last month about the appearance of NaN in a company’s profile page. Here Nan, as we know her familiarly, shows up again in a search results for the stock symbol MANA:

Not another not a number
Click for full size

This occurred when looking up a stock symbol whose company just merged with a private company, but apparently the stock symbol was cached somewhere. A situation the developers would tell you never happened. Don’t look for it now, as it is corrected, so I’m sure only flaming out for a couple users in a rare instance is A-OK.

Next, we have one of those stupid error messages that occur when you do a normal function and something goes blinky somewhere. When I clicked the Spam folder link in my classic Yahoo! Web mail, I got the following message:

Inspected by error 17
Click for full size

You know, I’m not a fan about esoteric error codes that require interpretation by the great development gods. But what makes the icing on this cake, along with the pretty colored lettering and exclamation point, is that when I clicked the Contact Customer Service about Error Code 17 link, it took me to this page:

Not inspected by anyone, apparently.
Click for full size

It’s a page about Error Code 14. Maybe error code 17 caused error code 14. Maybe the number is connected to a random number generator. All I should do is not to worry because the experts at Yahoo! have been notified, and they’ll get to it after they’re finished with the “I don’t want to work for Microsoft” job search. Sorry, I meant never.

Finally, I think the advertisement that displays at the bottom of my Yahoo! IM client was puking. When I saw this ad:

Olive Garden ad

This error occurred:

Yahoo! Blech
Click for full size

The lesson here is to make sure you test your banner ads in the environments where they will display. Maybe the ad was tested in an actual Web page (okay, that’s probably wishful thinking on my part), but since it was embedded within the desktop application client, it failed.

Additionally, if you’re writing a desktop client that takes content from third parties, you’d better check to handle malformed content and bad HTML because your third party’s standards for quality are probably even lower than yours. If you can imagine that. If you cannot, you must lack a quality program in the first place.

Comments are closed.


wordpress visitors