char string

[Chris Smith]

Whatever, the point is that it was a user error motivated by bad
hardware. You can try to accuse Google of having too much response
variance, but I am not sure that isn't true of just about every USENET
server out there as well.

Nah, the point is to criticize Google for not handling the multiple
submit problem, which is a basic thing to do for pretty much any web
application in the world. It shouldn't matter how many times you click
the submit button.

--
www.designacourse.com
The Easiest Way To Train Anyone... Anywhere.

Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
MindIQ Corporation

 

[Rod Pemberton]

Nah, the point is to criticize Google for not handling the multiple
submit problem, which is a basic thing to do for pretty much any web
application in the world. It shouldn't matter how many times you click
the submit button.

Posting complaints _here_ about Google related posts improves nothing...
Google complaints should be directed to Googles complaint department.


RP

 

[Keith Thompson]

Posting complaints _here_ about Google related posts improves nothing...

Not true. There are workarounds, as you know perfectly well.

Google complaints should be directed to Googles complaint department.

Yes, that too.

 

[websnarf]

Nah, the point is to criticize Google for not handling the multiple
submit problem, which is a basic thing to do for pretty much any web
application in the world. It shouldn't matter how many times you click
the submit button.

Right -- so I'm sure I pressed back, then post again. Remember that I
didn't know whether it was my failed mouse hardware or just Google
being slow. Pressing back doesn't lose the data, so that's the
deterministic procedure I chose.

Its not a Google synchronization problem, since I literally submitted
the post twice; unless you expect Google to see that its clearly the
same input and that it should squash the "dual" post. That's plausible
-- but its a *rare* problem. Remember, I needed to have knowingly
failing hardware with a willingness to continue to use it for me to use
Google to double post incorrectly like this. I think the standard
should be if you see that happening on a regular basis, which I don't
think is the case.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Right -- so I'm sure I pressed back, then post again. Remember that I
didn't know whether it was my failed mouse hardware or just Google
being slow. Pressing back doesn't lose the data, so that's the
deterministic procedure I chose.

Its not a Google synchronization problem, since I literally submitted
the post twice; unless you expect Google to see that its clearly the
same input and that it should squash the "dual" post. That's plausible
-- but its a *rare* problem. Remember, I needed to have knowingly
failing hardware with a willingness to continue to use it for me to use
Google to double post incorrectly like this. I think the standard
should be if you see that happening on a regular basis, which I don't
think is the case.

It is. We regularly see multiple identical postings from Google,
typically less than a minute apart.

 

[Karl Malbrain]

Right -- so I'm sure I pressed back, then post again. Remember that I
didn't know whether it was my failed mouse hardware or just Google
being slow. Pressing back doesn't lose the data, so that's the
deterministic procedure I chose.

Its not a Google synchronization problem, since I literally submitted
the post twice; unless you expect Google to see that its clearly the
same input and that it should squash the "dual" post. That's plausible
-- but its a *rare* problem. Remember, I needed to have knowingly
failing hardware with a willingness to continue to use it for me to use
Google to double post incorrectly like this. I think the standard
should be if you see that happening on a regular basis, which I don't
think is the case.

Google could easily encode an identifier on the submit button to
identify multpile posts. They have poor interface logic. karl m