Why, yes. Yes, I am. Obviously.

The real WTF, obviously, is the Washington Post Social Reader.

And the WTF is...?

blakeyrat:

And the WTF is...?

They haven't figured out how to use User Agent strings? Just guessing.

Gazzonyx:

blakeyrat:

And the WTF is...?

They haven't figured out how to use User Agent strings? Just guessing.

Why would you assume the ad network can target based on userAgent? That would be pretty unusual... I know the "Big Two" don't have that capability.

blakeyrat:

Gazzonyx:

blakeyrat:

And the WTF is...?

They haven't figured out how to use User Agent strings? Just guessing.

Why would you assume the ad network can target based on userAgent? That would be pretty unusual... I know the "Big Two" don't have that capability.

Why wouldn't they be able to read the user agent string?

morbiuswilters:

Why wouldn't they be able to read the user agent string?

No technical reason, there's just not much client demand. Unless you happen to be MS and you happen to be advertising a new browser, what good is it?

Although now that I think about it, I'm reasonably sure Atlas can target Mac/Windows, or at least tools built atop it can, so maybe I'm a liar. Not sure if that's real-time targeting or retargeting though.

blakeyrat:

Why would you assume the ad network can target based on userAgent? That would be pretty unusual... I know the "Big Two" don't have that capability.

Why would you assume this is on an ad network? It looks pretty clear by its language that this is a banner that's maintained and provided by the washingtonpost.com and not some global ad.

RHuckster:

blakeyrat:

Why would you assume the ad network can target based on userAgent? That would be pretty unusual... I know the "Big Two" don't have that capability.

Why would you assume this is on an ad network? It looks pretty clear by its language that this is a banner that's maintained and provided by the washingtonpost.com and not some global ad.

This was my assumption, as well.

RHuckster:

Why would you assume this is on an ad network? It looks pretty clear by its language that this is a banner that's maintained and provided by the washingtonpost.com and not some global ad.

You are correct sir.

In that case it is indeed a WTF, namely that WaPo's developers are either crummy, or their back-end is too complex/badly-designed to pass-through userAgent.

But in my defense, without grabbing your dev tools and hitting the thing it doesn't look like a WTF at all. This is why people need to explain the WTF.

 And you totally know the back-end code is:

if (userAgent != IE7 || userAgent != IE8)
{
   // if they aren't using IE7 or 8, then that leaves, by logic elimination, only one other browser: IE6. Serve that ad.

   vulture.serve("IE6_Upgraed_AD");

}

Lorne Kates:

if (userAgent != IE7 || userAgent != IE8)

I take it the || is for humor purposes? :)

So far, this thread appears to be a counterexample to Blakeyrat's Law.

And no, this post should not be considered a request to make the thread conform to Blakeyrat's Law.

To be fair (and pedantic), they were asking if you were still using it. We've just gotten lazy and expect computers to do our work for us.

boomzilla:

We've just gotten lazy and expect computers to do our work for us.

 

Not sure if serious.

dhromed:

boomzilla:

We've just gotten lazy and expect computers to do our work for us.

Not sure if serious.

What, like you think web servers have nothing better to do than to ponder User Agent strings?

Doing the work for us is a computer's primary purpose.

dhromed:

Doing the work for us is a computer's primary purpose.

 

No that is going to be the primary purpose of robots some day in the far future. A guitar does not make music either ya know, its all just appliances to be used by humans to -help- them to their job.

 

dhromed:

Doing the work for us is a computer's primary purpose.

But think of all of the efficiencies you miss out on by having the web server do that. I mean, distributed parallel processing! And if you're reading the WaPo, you definitely have some spare brain cycles to spare.

Just out of curiosity, I visited the site in IE8. What's wrong with this picture, and Why-TF am I actually surprised?

erikal:

dhromed:

Doing the work for us is a computer's primary purpose.

 

No that is going to be the primary purpose of robots some day in the far future. A guitar does not make music either ya know, its all just appliances to be used by humans to -help- them to their job.

Our future robot overlords disagree

MeesterTurner:

Just out of curiosity, I visited the site in IE8. What's wrong with this picture, and Why-TF am I actually surprised?

TRWTF is that you're not using IE6. Do you enjoy the sting of being an early adopter?

erikal:

dhromed:

Doing the work for us is a computer's primary purpose.

No

 

Computers are built to do (number-) work so we don't have to.

that is going to be the primary purpose of robots some day in the far future.

Interestingly, it is also the primary purpose of the robots we have right now.

A computer helps one do work. Computers do work. They let you automate things so you don't have to those things. This is the fundamental reason of their existence. Do you think Babbage did that shit for the lulz? He wanted a calculator so the machine could do the work instead of him. The only work left for him was to program that machine.

 

Of course, then someone invented dropshadows and Aero Glass, and suddenly for some strange reason computers are doing tons of work without actually doing anything.

 

MeesterTurner:

What's wrong with this picture, and Why-TF am I actually surprised?

 

There's nothing wrong. The page does no attempt at identifying the browser, it's just a banner linking to a page explaining that if you're still using IE6 it's damn about time to move on:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/replacing-internet-explorer-6-to-improve-your-web-browsing-experience/2012/01/11/gIQA2ukbqP_story.html

Not much of a WTF for me...

And BTW, it's not really an ad, since it mentions all major browsers, so I guess Blakey's law does not apply : )

Scarlet Manuka:

So far, this thread appears to be a counterexample to Blakeyrat's Law.

And no, this post should not be considered a request to make the thread conform to Blakeyrat's Law.

Nah, its ok-- it turns out it's not an ad placement at all, it's something WaPo decided to add to their page. Blakeyrat's Law doesn't apply.

Still, they should turn it off if you're not using IE6. Especially if you're using IE7 or IE8; only one version of IE can be running on a Windows box.

blakeyrat:

Scarlet Manuka:

So far, this thread appears to be a counterexample to Blakeyrat's Law.

And no, this post should not be considered a request to make the thread conform to Blakeyrat's Law.

Nah, its ok-- it turns out it's not an ad placement at all, it's something WaPo decided to add to their page. Blakeyrat's Law doesn't apply.

So it doesn't have to have the things, but it does still seem to conform to it (if only in the mentioning of them):

dargor17:

Filed under: as a matter of fact it's visible without disabling adblock

locallunatic:

So it doesn't have to have the things, but it does still seem to conform to it (if only in the mentioning of them):

I INVENTED BLAKEYRAT'S LAW YOU DO NOT GET TO QUESTION ME ABOUT ITS MEANING!

Has anybody actually tried visiting the site in Internet Explorer 6? If I try that, all I get is a flash of content, then IE redirects to it's internal "This page cannot be displayed" and pops up Operation aborted.

 Did anyone consider that MS simply paid Washington Post to run the ad, and Washington Post simply didn't give a rat's ass how well it was targeted?

blakeyrat:

locallunatic:

So it doesn't have to have the things, but it does still seem to conform to it (if only in the mentioning of them):

I INVENTED BLAKEYRAT'S LAW YOU DO NOT GET TO QUESTION ME ABOUT ITS MEANING!

I think that if we have to live with a "living Constitution," we can bear a "living blakeyrat's law."

blakeyrat:

Gazzonyx:

blakeyrat:

And the WTF is...?

They haven't figured out how to use User Agent strings? Just guessing.

Why would you assume the ad network can target based on userAgent? That would be pretty unusual... I know the "Big Two" don't have that capability.

Logging out of Hotmail takes you to beautyoftheweb.com, Microsoft's IE9-plugging site. It will suggest downloading IE9 even if you're already using it, so it could be not so much a case of not reading user-agent strings as not caring what the browser is.

boomzilla:

"living Constitution"

I always considered it more like a zombie

dargor17:

MeesterTurner:

What's wrong with this picture, and Why-TF am I actually surprised?

 

There's nothing wrong. The page does no attempt at identifying the browser, it's just a banner linking to a page explaining that if you're still using IE6 it's damn about time to move on:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/replacing-internet-explorer-6-to-improve-your-web-browsing-experience/2012/01/11/gIQA2ukbqP_story.html

Not much of a WTF for me...

Me too.  Most people in this thread seem to have their Complicators' Gloves on:

1)  Why bother going to the trouble of writing code to read the user-agent and decide whether the ad is relevant or not, when in any case you're about to present it to a human being with a visual system and a brain?  Let them do the work of deciding whether it's relevant or not.

2)  Some people have more than one browser, or more than one PC.  Just because they're using FF to read the news headlines doesn't mean they might not have IE6 on the machine as well, or that the advert might not remind them to upgrade their other PC.

Conclusion: Targeting based on the user-agent would be more effort and more false negatives.  False positives aren't a problem.  Therefore just shoving a static ad in there makes plenty of sense and so is Not A WTF.

blakeyrat:

locallunatic:

So it doesn't have to have the things, but it does still seem to conform to it (if only in the mentioning of them):

I INVENTED BLAKEYRAT'S LAW YOU DO NOT GET TO QUESTION ME ABOUT ITS MEANING!

 

Yeah. Next thing you know, they'll be telling Lou Gehrig which of his motor functions he's allowed to degenerate with the disease he invented.

DaveK:

Therefore just shoving a static ad in there makes plenty of sense and so is Not A WTF.

I dunno... it looks like anyone using IE6 to view the site can't (and miss the warning), and those viewing it with a different browser but still using IE6 on elsewhere will have already followed the advice on the linked page. It kinda makes the link superflous.

I can't help thinking that it's actually aimed at people using IE6 to read that site, encouraging them to upgrade or replace that browser. And if that IS the case, sniffing the user-agent string for /MSIE 6\./ should narrow the appearance of that link to a more suitable audience.

I mean, this is kinda what we're initially discussing, right? Why ask me if you have the means to check yourself?