[chromium-discuss] Oh Snap is not quite that helpful

[tenderhooks]

I think the "Oh Snap" page could be better, features like an automatic
refresh with count-down indicator to show when the page will refresh
itself and how many times it has already could be useful. The page
would auto refresh five times, each time the timer would run for
longer, eventually giving up.

Display whois info so the page can be reported to the webmaster
themselves.

The word refresh should be a link to refresh the page itself and not
just a word, some people might not link the two and its a nice
convenience.

Cached results for viewing would be really helpful too and an ability
to send Google a report to have the page struck off the search index
would tidy things up.

A new graphic would benefit the page also.

--
Chromium Discussion mailing list: chromium...@chromium.org
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-discuss

[Ben]

Being removed from the search index can be more damaging than you might
realize, especially when the problem might not be the site's fault, but
due to an advertisement on the page.

The other ideas sound nice, though. Maybe hide the WhoIs info in a
drop-down, or link to a bug-reporting page which uses a "broken-site"
template. Would have to do a query to see if any other pages on the site
have been reported first, though, to avoid duplicates.

On 05/01/2010 05:25 PM, tenderhooks wrote:
> Cached results for viewing would be really helpful too and an ability
> to send Google a report to have the page struck off the search index
> would tidy things up.
>

[Caleb Eggensperger]

The "Oh snap" page is more of a chrome error page than an error on the site you're viewing. Ideally, Chrome would never produce this page. If you've enabled crash reporting, these renderer crashes are automatically reported to the chrome team. Having an automatic refresh feature would pollute these crash reports. The goal here, as far as I know, is to have the average user running stable builds to never see that screen.

On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 17:25, tenderhooks <love...@gmail.com> wrote:

Display whois info so the page can be reported to the webmaster
themselves.

Again, the problem is more likely on Chrome's end, not the webmaster's.

 

A new graphic would benefit the page also.

 

How would a new graphic be better? What's wrong with the current error page? I think there are more productive things chrome devs have to work on....

--
Chromium Discussion mailing list: chromium...@chromium.org
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
   http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-discuss

--
Caleb Eggensperger
http://calebegg.com/

[tenderhooks]

I thought the Oh SNap page was Chrome's version of a 404, so this
makes things different. Well in case of a 404 I advocate the
aforementioned ideas then.

"How would a new graphic be better? What's wrong with the current
error page? I think there are more productive things chrome devs have
to work on...."

Jesus, coders always come out with ridiculous things like that.

On May 2, 11:33 pm, Caleb Eggensperger <caleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The "Oh snap" page is more of a chrome error page than an error on the site
> you're viewing. Ideally, Chrome would never produce this page. If you've
> enabled crash reporting, these renderer crashes are automatically reported
> to the chrome team. Having an automatic refresh feature would pollute these
> crash reports. The goal here, as far as I know, is to have the average user
> running stable builds to never see that screen.
>

> On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 17:25, tenderhooks <lovel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Display whois info so the page can be reported to the webmaster
> > themselves.
>
> Again, the problem is more likely on Chrome's end, not the webmaster's.
>
> > A new graphic would benefit the page also.
>
> How would a new graphic be better? What's wrong with the current error page?
> I think there are more productive things chrome devs have to work on....
>
> --
>

> > Chromium Discussion mailing list: chromium-disc...@chromium.org

> > View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
> >    http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-discuss
>
> --

> Caleb Eggenspergerhttp://calebegg.com/
>
> --
> Chromium Discussion mailing list: chromium-disc...@chromium.org

[Caleb Eggensperger]

On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 18:14, tenderhooks <love...@gmail.com> wrote:

I thought the Oh SNap page was Chrome's version of a 404, so this
makes things different. Well in case of a 404 I advocate the
aforementioned ideas then.

404 pages are under the purview of the site owner. Server not found errors get their own page already that suggests a search query or a new domain name in the case of a typo.

 

"How would a new graphic be better? What's wrong with the current
error page? I think there are more productive things chrome devs have
to work on...."

Jesus, coders always come out with ridiculous things like that.

Ridiculous how? It's ridiculous to say that there's nothing wrong with the current graphic? Why change it if there's no problem with the current one? You still haven't given any reason to change it.

--
Caleb Eggensperger
http://calebegg.com/

--

[Ben]

>
> A new graphic would benefit the page also.
>

Behold! I come baring a new graphic, in all it's grand SVG glory! Okay,
so it's not really better than the old one, but it's new. ;)

Attached: ohsnap.svg, and ohsnap.png.

[Ben]

On 05/02/2010 07:36 PM, Ben wrote:
>>
>> A new graphic would benefit the page also.
> Behold! I come baring a new graphic, in all it's grand SVG glory!
> Okay, so it's not really better than the old one, but it's new. ;)
>
> Attached: ohsnap.svg, and ohsnap.png.

Arg, looked alright at first. Seems I messed up on the right tab (only
partially filled)... Oh well, that can be fixed by someone who knows
what they're doing with Inkscape.

[PhistucK]

So you basically went from pixelated graphics to vector graphics and lost and missed the whole point of that graphic?

Hehe.

☆PhistucK

[Ben]

Hey, he asked for something new. You have another idea of how to make a new graphic without losing something of the original?

By the way, what is the point of that graphic? I don't think I knew it to begin with.

[PhistucK]

No, I do not have another idea, but I am also too sure that this graphic will not change soon, if ever.

☆PhistucK

[Caleb Eggensperger]

On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 23:16, Ben <benj...@gmail.com> wrote:

By the way, what is the point of that graphic? I don't think I knew it to begin with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sad_Mac

-- 

Caleb Eggensperger
http://calebegg.com/

[tenderhooks]

"Ridiculous how? It's ridiculous to say that there's nothing wrong
with the
current graphic? Why change it if there's no problem with the current
one?
You still haven't given any reason to change it."

Coders are the most un-style conscious people on earth, ever, except
tramps. They just care about security and stuff like that. If
something looks naff you can forget people taking it seriously ne
mass, they'l think its naff because it looks naff. If I need to
explain this then there is the problem right before you.

On May 3, 6:17 am, Caleb Eggensperger <caleb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 23:16, Ben <benjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >  By the way, what is the point of that graphic? I don't think I knew it to
> > begin with.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sad_Mac
>
> --

> Caleb Eggenspergerhttp://calebegg.com/
>
> --
> Chromium Discussion mailing list: chromium-disc...@chromium.org

[Alexander Skwar]

Hi.

2010/5/3 Caleb Eggensperger <cale...@gmail.com>:

> current graphic? Why change it if there's no problem with the current one?
> You still haven't given any reason to change it.

It would be oh so great, if that logic would always be applied - but
at least in the case of removing http://, this obviously wasn't applied
to implementing the "remove http:// stupidity".

Alexander
--
↯  Lifestream (Twitter, Blog, …) ↣ http://alexs77.soup.io/ ↯
↯ Chat (Jabber/Google Talk) ↣ a.s...@gmail.com , AIM: alexws77 ↯