The importance of checking your error messages - an example from Delta

Since my first web site in 1995, error messages have always been a frustration for me. Working with hundreds of developers over the years, the error messages can really put egg on your face when you go live. Many times there are swear words in them, they are not properly formatted, the non-english speaking coders show through. I have debated several times as to whose responsibility it is to make sure that they are verified before a launch.

And I completely understand that web sites have errors. We can't always test everything, sometimes in the real world, issues arise that we couldn't plan for. But the key is to get them fixed as soon as possible so that others are not frustrated. What's interesting to me is that small sub-10 people startups get issues fixed quickly while large mega corporations tend to take longer to get problems resolved.

Over the past six months or so, there are reports on Flyertalk that using the Delta web site produces "null" errors. I had my first run-in with a null error about 3 months ago when booking a ticket. Since we know Delta checks the Flyertalk board, you would think someone would get information to the developers to get this fixed and create something that makes more sense. What's worse is that when you call support for help (either in Lithuania or India), they don't understand the word "null" - at least that was what happened the last two times for me.

Today, I am trying to confirm an award ticket. I click "confirm award" and it goes to the page below. A page that is completely blank that says NOTHING but "null". I have tried 3 computers, 6 browsers, same thing.

So off to call Delta support I go. Hold for 27 minutes (phone has a timer) and I get India support who seems to not understand how to get it confirmed. She fixes the "issue" and tells me to try again. I do and now it tells me I must call support "immediately" or the ticket will be cancelled. But she can't help me she says and I now wait on hold another 12 minutes for technical web site support. And now it is fixed. 40 minutes and a lot of frustration later.

Had the error message been clearer about what I need to do, I could have saved time and frustration.  And Delta - I will help you - the errors appear to come (most times from my research) when there is a schedule change.

Here is an image of the error message I received:

Delta

AddThis
Forward
RSS Feed
COMMENTS - Add New Comment
Submitted by Kyle J on February 19, 2007 - 3:34am.

a lot more public opinion on programming

Submitted by SirNuke on February 19, 2007 - 3:59am.

'null', in this case, more likely means the site's javascript code set one of the document's elements to a null object. A guess off the top of my head about the source is they are using AJAX, and an error in the client/server communication results in a null object (an object that would otherwise contain the html code for the next step in claiming your award). An error, but not an error message.

Startup's have the upper hand with fixing bugs. Less bureaucracy, more dedicated staff, and so on.

Irregardless of the type of company, 6 months is far too long to fix the problem.

Submitted by eye-roller on February 19, 2007 - 5:13am.

Irregardless??

ROFL...

Submitted by Anonymous on February 19, 2007 - 5:42am.

"irregardless" is not a legitimate word,

Submitted by Anonymous on February 19, 2007 - 5:47am.

Actually, we use irregardless quite a lot in London :| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless

Submitted by Anonymous on February 19, 2007 - 7:50am.

Ignorance in practice is still ignorance.

Use regardless.

Submitted by Anonymous on February 19, 2007 - 10:19am.

> Use regardless.

haha ha ha ha ha

what?

Submitted by Blah on February 19, 2007 - 1:47pm.

Have you ever bothered to find out where new words come from and how they slowly come in to general acceptance?

Submitted by Anonymous on February 19, 2007 - 10:27am.

"Actually, we use irregardless quite a lot in London"

If lots of people in my hometown did something clearly wrong, I don't think I'd brag about it...

Submitted by Anonymous on February 20, 2007 - 5:20am.

It's common in spoken English and not generally accepted in formal prose (that's "he said, she said" and "wrote down in a fancy book" for all the language police that apparently lurk everywhere). Since Blogs in general and comments in particular are most definitely informal and reflect spoken English, I say you guys need a life only slightly more than I do, and you need some perspective way more than I, or the person you are mocking, does.

" ... Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. ..."
Mirriam-Webster [USA]

" ... The bigger question in the case of "irregardless" is one of language. Language is the use of a combination of words in a fashion acceptable by the community that speaks said language. ... Irregardless. Okay, it's a word. Is it correct use of the language? The vote yes or no depends on the community, and therein lies the problem. The community doesn't agree. ...

And finally, the Oxford English Dictionary [UK, and the Word's definitive dictionary of the English language] wades in with " ... "American dialectical" and, well, if it's part of a dialect, then "no firm judgment shall be made."

Submitted by Anonymous on February 20, 2007 - 9:05am.

Uhm no! we don't use that in London.

Submitted by Matthew Harwood on February 19, 2007 - 5:37am.

I remember a few years back, seeing "Ooops, something fecked up big time. Call 911." on either softpedia, or fileforum (I forget which one). Was good to see :-D

Submitted by Caliban10 on February 19, 2007 - 10:40am.

Some error messages I've seen in Eudora:

"Nicknames in Eudora are limited to 30 characters. This nickname you've typed is...carry the two, subtract the square of Oklahoma...well it's too long."

for dialog box with buttons: Use Old and Rebuild
"Really, you should choose Rebuild.
We only leave 'Use Old' in for geeks. This most likely reason for the toc being out of date is that your machine crashed during a mail transfer, and you might LOSE MAIL if you don't hit 'Rebuild'."

Submitted by Anonymous on February 19, 2007 - 1:52pm.

typical MORONs arguing about grammer rather than the problem originally states.

Regardless of why the 'null' was generated, it is an error if it can be seen by folks browsing the page.

Submitted by Anonymous on February 19, 2007 - 2:12pm.

That's "grammar" genius.

Submitted by Anonymous on February 20, 2007 - 5:26am.

" ... that's "grammar" ..."

Cool. You call out for a "typical moron", and one comes a-running.

Wait, I hear another one ... goona tell me that spelling is not grammar ...

... oops, scared him off.

Submitted by Anonymous on February 19, 2007 - 3:39pm.

my favorite error message (when an upload fails to my ftp server)

...And our attempt to create, rename or upload a file or directory
has failed.

Why? And what can be done about it?

Friend, these are deep issues. Perhaps this file was never meant to exist on this server, and the Powers That Be have sent it to /dev/null. Many a worthy file has found its end there.

However, the most probable reason is that this script does not have permission from the server to create new files or directories in the intended location.

As to what can be done, well... if you are comfortable using Telnet, you should telnet to this site and type the following:

chmod 777 /t/harvey/u/pinewood/admin/CVS/

Alternately, if you use CuteFTP or WS_FTP, make this directory
writable from your FTP client.

Understand that sometimes, things just fail. People fail. Governemnts fail. And yes, CGI scripts fail. You could always read the documentation, or you could write to us to report a possible bug.

Submitted by unco on February 20, 2007 - 3:49am.

rofl

seen recently:

"its gone, very gone... but then so have I so this problem will persist"

Submitted by Asshole on February 22, 2007 - 8:47am.

"ID10T User"

Submitted by Mike on February 19, 2007 - 4:24pm.

The reason bigger companies take longer to fix stuff is

  1. They have more problems, a bigger codebase, and less people that understand the codebase in its entirety.
  2. Problems usually get prioritized against set criteria. One of which is usually frequency and customer base affected.
  3. There is usually more than one hand involved in the fix; peer reviews, QA, live code change approvals, rollout plans etc

A small startup would look at any problem as serious, assign a single dedicated resource to it who knows the code well and he/she would be responsible for the whole process.

I've worked both sides of the fence so I know how much red tape can slow you down.

Submitted by Anonymous on February 19, 2007 - 8:32pm.

"the non-english speaking coders"?? Look at it this way, the "non-english speaking" coders, they speak at least 2 languags. You only speak 1 you f*** face ;)

Submitted by centernetworks on February 19, 2007 - 9:30pm.

Actually I speak a bit of 4 languages (one day hope to be fluent in all 4). What I mean is that the error messages should be written in the language that the site is written in. Site is in polish, error messages in clear polish. Site is in french, error messages in clear french, etc.

Become a sponsor

SPONSORS

AdRevenue08
Clicky Web Analytics
Web 2.0 Expo Berlin 2008

PARTNERS

read centernetworks anywhere!
Advertise here

OTHER STUFF