Msn Search Mistake

MedHeadMedHead Join Date: 2002-12-19 Member: 11115Members, Constellation
edited July 2004 in Off-Topic
<div class="IPBDescription">Teasing Microsoft is Fun</div> <a href='http://search.msn.com/' target='_blank'>http://search.msn.com/</a>

The new MSN search engine is out now. And already, a mistake. View the source for the main page, and read the first command -

<!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1--><html language="javascript"><!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->

Wow. That's new to me!

Thanks to user <b>me</b> from the <a href='http://www.somethingleet.com/forum' target='_blank'>SomethingLeet.com Forum</a>, and <a href='http://www.mikeindustries.com/' target='_blank'>Mike Inudstries Blog</a> for the information. An archived version of the MSN search page is available on Mike's page if Microsoft wises up.
Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome

Comments

  • DragonMechDragonMech Join Date: 2003-09-19 Member: 21023Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
    [Nelson] HAHA! [/Nelson]
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • Dorian_GrayDorian_Gray Join Date: 2004-02-15 Member: 26581Members, Constellation
    Wow. Ran it through the W3C validator. 23 errors in that small a page.

    <a href='http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.msn.com%2F' target='_blank'>Linkage</a>
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • MedHeadMedHead Join Date: 2002-12-19 Member: 11115Members, Constellation
    <!--QuoteBegin-Dorian Gray+Jul 15 2004, 12:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dorian Gray @ Jul 15 2004, 12:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Wow. Ran it through the W3C validator. 23 errors in that small a page.

    <a href='http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.msn.com%2F' target='_blank'>Linkage</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    <span style='color:orange'>There you go, ranting on about standards again...</span>

    Orange=sarcasm.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • JavertJavert Join Date: 2003-04-30 Member: 15954Members
    Oh, what irony. I bet THAT programmer is the talk of the water cooler.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • Seph_KimaraSeph_Kimara Join Date: 2003-08-10 Member: 19359Members
    <!--QuoteBegin-Dorian Gray+Jul 15 2004, 05:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dorian Gray @ Jul 15 2004, 05:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Wow. Ran it through the W3C validator. 23 errors in that small a page.

    <a href='http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.msn.com%2F' target='_blank'>Linkage</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Now really. You expect MSN, which is owned and maintained by the same corporation who brought you internet explorer to adhere to STANDARDS? I need to ask what clouds your head is currently in.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • CronosCronos Join Date: 2002-10-18 Member: 1542Members
    In perhpas the first defence of Microsoft that you will ever see from me, Google comes up with about 40 errors for their main page.

    Like it or not we cant blame microsoft completely, ultimately some geeky programmer with glasses fudged it up due to a lack of coffee.

    However, if they dont fix the errors once they've been pointed out after an appreciable period, THEN one can rip into the corporation with delight <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • coriscoris Join Date: 2003-07-08 Member: 18034Members, Constellation
    <a href='http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=%28detect+automatically%29' target='_blank'>http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%...utomatically%29</a>

    gg MS wins
    :/
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • moultanomoultano Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
    On a page like google's I'm suprised they haven't removed all unnecessary spaces, carriage returns, etc. just to save on bandwidth.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • Dorian_GrayDorian_Gray Join Date: 2004-02-15 Member: 26581Members, Constellation
    <a href='http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.microsoft.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=%28detect+automatically%29' target='_blank'>Microsoft.com</a>. 173 errors <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
    But yeah, they do use a lot of IE specific stuff, which doesn't follow web standards. Why they can't make their stuff work in browsers that don't have so many security holes it put swiss cheese to shame is another question entirely however. Even if you ignore the security, I hate the windows IE since it doesn't follow CSS rules correctly. Evil evil evil.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • FamFam Diaper-Wearing Dog On A Ball Join Date: 2002-02-17 Member: 222Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
    The pages cause errors because, as moultano stated, they have both had unnecessary characters removed to save on bandwidht. For google, ever character on their main page probably has a quite noticable cost in terms of transfer. Its for reasons liek this that they use shorthand and msis of things like doctypes wherever possible.

    However, there are some things which you cant really put down to saving bandwidth. I can only assume that language="javascript" ties into some of their software, somehow, in some ungodly way. And things like <span style="font-weight: bold"> is just sobworthy. Its exactly the same as ,b>, just as pointless, and longer. There are at least 2 better ways of doing it, both of which would have used fewer characters.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • WirheWirhe Join Date: 2003-06-22 Member: 17610Members
    W3C is just a third-party recommending their own standards, thus most (...if not all...) ignore them. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->

    Besides, who uses *MSN* when it so blatantly censorships the results. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • panda_de_malheureuxpanda_de_malheureux Join Date: 2003-12-26 Member: 24775Members
    edited July 2004
    no need to mention that MS, MSN and google are filthy rich and can include the unnecessary characters.

    edit: 1 character is what, 8 bits, a byte. say 10million page views a day, 10m Bytes. 10,000 kB, 10mB of wasted traffic per day. Ofcourse the hitcount and everything is different but it's still very small.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
Sign In or Register to comment.