Friday Fun with Google's 'Colorful' Debugging Statements

14 comments

Developer Chad Upton came across some really colorful debug statements from Google developers in YouTube. Such as:

Quote:
* The connection just got tea bagged - reset and reload
* Fuck bandwidth detection script its taking too long or not working so fuck it hard
* Flash is affecting badly the performance of the ****.com website
* This feature does not work and crashes the player fix laterz
* HACK HACK HACK HACK HACK this scuks

Want to see them for yourself? Install the FlashTracer add-on for FireFox and the Debug Flash Player, then browse over to YouTube.com and watch a video.

via RawFeed: Google's Reputation Just Got Teabagged

Comments

apologies

As I am hijacking a thread to make a comment. When will TW rename itself as Google Watch

Marketing and Technology news discussed! are you sure? and this comment is nothing against the OP

Quote: Google Watch Daniel

Quote:
Google Watch

Daniel Brandt took it on the chin for many years from the webmaster community. Turns out the guy has been more right than wrong.

I think what you are seeing Remo is "pent-up demand" in reverse. Google has played the professional web folks like a fiddle in earning their trust, sadly its becoming all too apparent that that trust has been sorely abused.

amen hardball

... and it's good to see people are finally waking up the fact that Google isn't all sweetness and light and 'do no evil' was nothing more than propaganda.

..

Quote:
Daniel Brandt took it on the chin for many years from the webmaster community. Turns out the guy has been more right than wrong.

I've agreed with Mr. Brandt more often than I disagreed with him.

I find it rather odd that well researched opinions, like Mr. Brandt's, can be dismissed with an off hand dismissive comment like, "Where is your tin foil hat?".

I wonder what all those people that don't wear tin foil hats think.... Oh wait... I can just ask google and find out...

I've agreed with Mr. Brandt more often than I disagreed with him

Same here. Again and again.

Guess it makes a big difference if you're confronting the topic of "privacy issues" for the first time within the context of search, or if you've garnered plenty of experience in this field (possibly even to your own detriment) elsewhere.

..

Quote:
...if you've garnered plenty of experience in this field (possibly even to your own detriment) elsewhere.

That made me chuckle... I think several of us here carry some old high profile scars over this issue. ;-)

Um, yes...

And the rest is privacy protection. LOL

Please don't call me ...

Surely, some other SE, somewhere is doing something besides Google? Not just TW but it seems like all the SE and maintream media can do is count Google's nose hairs with breathless anticipation.

(Note 1: Nothing against skore for posting this thread, I'm just following the hijack.)

(Note 2: Um, me too. :-) )

> Daniel Brandt took it on

>> Daniel Brandt took it on the chin for many years from the webmaster community. Turns out the guy has been more right than wrong.

No, Daniel Brandt is and was excessively paranoid, IMO. Google were NEVER as good as they made out themselves, and aren't as bad as the backlash will make them out to be. They are an idealistic company, currently struggling with squaring that idealism with the harsher realities of being a PLC

That said, Google need the odd kick up the backside. Since their alleged competition seems utterly incapable of rousing itself sufficiently to manage it, Everyman serves a valuable purpose here

>> I find it rather odd that well researched opinions, like Mr. Brandt's, can be dismissed with an off hand dismissive comment like, "Where is your tin foil hat?".

Hmmmm, some of his comments over the years have been light-years from being "well researched opinions", and in fact triple layer tinfoil hats were well in order. Just because the general thrust of what he's been saying is more right than wrong, don't fall into the trap of assigning him Messianic status. He's been waaaay wrong a few times too

>> Surely, some other SE, somewhere is doing something besides Google?

Well, that's the thing isn't it? No, not really. Yahoo had Panama out (eventually) a while ago, but even WMW has given up reporting updates there. No-one understands what the hell MSN is doing. Ask tried the recent ad campaign, and that sort of went sideways.... Seriously, if ANYONE out there knows of an SE other than Google doing something actually worth talking about, just say

Privacy protection is a hard sell

And it's something every man and his dog pretend to be experts at. (Similar to advertising, marketing, and human psychology, at least as viewed in some if not most quarters.)

Daniel Brandt may have been off the mark occasionally, but then again who hasn't? Don't know where you're getting the "Messianic status" from - nothing in this thread that merits this admonition IMV. But it's an exceedingly common knee jerk reaction, much like that blanket "conspiracy theory, bah!" non-argument.

It's as if I said: "Google an 'idealistic company'? What a load of naive bull!" without qualifying my statement. Personally, I'd like to know first what makes you believe so and if you've got some hard, verifiable facts to back it up.

Or are you perhaps confusing the (entirely feasible) possibility of some Google employees indeed adopting an "idealistic" stance with the company and its policies as a whole? Just asking.

After all, an amateurish narcissistic and essentially boorish "we're good, we can't do wrong, we don't do evil" attitude - which I'll cheerfully grant them any day - doesn't qualify them for being something that would go against the very grain of just about every corporate entity in a capitalist society. That's simply not what profits are about.

We're probably agreed in that there's no point in merely demonizing Google. That would merely obfuscate the very real issues at hand. Those, however, are serious enough to warrant close scrutiny anytime - and very possibly a whole lot worse than any third class irrational nightmares could make them out to be...

> Don't know where you're

>> Don't know where you're getting the "Messianic status" from

>> Daniel Brandt took it on the chin for many years from the webmaster community. Turns out the guy has been more right than wrong

OK, I'm exagerating a bit - but puh-leeeze. Mr Brandt has never been very right, IMO, just pointed more in the right direction than the Google fanbois. I just have this horrible premonition that just because he's been vocally anti-Google for a while, he'll end up becoming a focal point for the backlash (which likely WOULD raise him to Messianic status), and that would be a Bad Thing

>> Personally, I'd like to know first what makes you believe so and if you've got some hard, verifiable facts to back it up.

Sort of. Let's say I've seen the threads / posts by him that WMW binned - y'all on the outside were spared the worst of it. I'm not sure how much of his schtick is posture, or whether he REALLY believes what he says

>> We're probably agreed in that there's no point in merely demonizing Google. That would merely obfuscate the very real issues at hand.

Oh yes - don't get me wrong, G should be very closely watched. Like it or not, they have huge influence on the WWW, but I think those who watch them should be impartial NOT rabidly anti-Google.

It's good that he was willing to challenge the conventional wisdom at a time when the "Google is God" meme was so strong, but I've always been deeply uncomfortable with the inflexibility of his views. Being correct doesn't make him RIGHT, if you see what I mean....

..

TT - I guess I should have been more specific. I did not mean I liked or agreed with every forum post by 'everyman' (Daniel Brandt). If I remember correctly we had some problems with him at Search Guild when I was a mod there, because of some of the statements and accusations he made.

I was speaking specifically about some of the articles he has written and posted on his "Google Watch" site that I believe are founded in fairly solid logic.

His articles on 'gmail', 'the 38 year cookie' and 'copyright vs. google', in my opinion are very close to the mark.

But then what do I know, I have been accused (more times than one) of having a 'tin foil hat' myself. ;-)

Quote: Oh yes - don't get me

Quote:
Oh yes - don't get me wrong, G should be very closely watched. Like it or not, they have huge influence on the WWW, but I think those who watch them should be impartial NOT rabidly anti-Google.

rabidly Anti-Brandt is ok though..

As these things go, the google response has always been to attack the messenger. From Brandt to Privacy International, its the same old schtick.

WMW has always been a propaganda channel for google, to this day you can have relatively mild criticisms of google deleted in nothing flat, nothing unique to Daniel Brandt.

When it comes to tossing around terms like "RABID", it sounds all too much like projection. Me think though protest too much.

Being correct doesn't make him RIGHT

Personally, I'll go for people being correct rather than "right" any time of the day. Because once you get involved in mere opinionating, anything goes, really. Not that personal opinions are necessarily bad or uninteresting. It's only when they are called upon to stand in lieu of factual evidence that the debate usually waxes entirely futile.

Quote:
not sure how much of his schtick is posture, or whether he REALLY believes what he says

Even if he did (and seeing the publicity management position he's tasked with that's one really big IF...) it doesn't a company policy make. Judge them by their deeds, not by their promo hype, their (in some if not many individual cases possibly entirely honest) fond self-delusions, or their established official groupthink and groupspeak. You'll hardly ever find a human who seriously believes that he or she is fundamentally wrong in anything they are responsible for, let alone "evil", no matter what they'll actually do to others.

Merely divining intentions - or giving a mega corp that's arguably in possession of the world's largest repository of individualized online user behavior data the benefit of the doubt - may make you a nice and sociable person, but that's quite irrelevant within the context we're discussing.

The generally prevailing stance of "all this data is ok with YOU, My Beloved Google, but what if SOMEONE ELSE should get hold of it some day" isn't just naive and IMV immature to the point of childishness, it's downright dangerous.

In both biology/medicine and societal structures there's only very, very rare parasites that are actually beneficial - and there's nothing to reasonably indicate that this particular one should be grouped in that category.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.