What's happened to Wikipedia? Have they gone bust? If you try to go to
it now the browser hangs or you get a blank page.

wrote:
What's happened to Wikipedia? Have they gone bust? If you try to go to
it now the browser hangs or you get a blank page.

No problem here - use it a few times a day. Sounds like a fault your end
or just perhaps with your ISP.

wrote:

What's happened to Wikipedia? Have they gone bust? If you try to go to
it now the browser hangs or you get a blank page.

No all still working for me, they have had a donations campaign for ther
past few days, with Jimmy Wales' fizzog leering at you after a few
seconds ..

" gurgled
happily, sounding much like they were saying:

What's happened to Wikipedia? Have they gone bust? If you try to go to
it now the browser hangs or you get a blank page.

I've just tried to look something up, and it was about as slow as a slug
with a broken leg trying to wade through treacle.

On 15/11/2010 19:51, Adrian wrote:
was about as slow as a slug
with a broken leg trying to wade through treacle.

I just tried the same wikipedia.org page from two ISPs, one worked one
didn't. My fixed connection, Plus.net, failed but my mobile connection,
Three, worked fine.

Everything else I've tried today through plus.net seems ok so I don't
know why wikipedia is having problems.

Adrian wrote:

I've just tried to look something up, and it was about as slow as

Actually yes, the search function does seem to be slow at the moment,
but the actual articles are quick to retrieve.

Andy Burns gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

I've just tried to look something up, and it was about as slow as

Actually yes, the search function does seem to be slow at the moment,
but the actual articles are quick to retrieve.

I searched through Google, then just clicked the link direct to a wiki
URL...

On Nov 15, 7:43*pm, "
wrote:
What's happened to Wikipedia? Have they gone bust? If you try to go to
it now the browser hangs or you get a blank page.

Good.

Perhaps people will stop quoting it in here and do some real research.

--
Nick

On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 12:19:40 -0800 (PST), D7666
wrote:

On Nov 15, 7:43*pm, "
wrote:
What's happened to Wikipedia? Have they gone bust? If you try to go to
it now the browser hangs or you get a blank page.

Good.

Perhaps people will stop quoting it in here and do some real research.

People are always making a joke of Wikipedia, but I don't know
why. I'm usually impressed by the quality of the pages there.
It's pretty reliable for articles on mathematics, and, as far
as I can tell, for other subjects, too. Are there some famous
examples of bad pages, which might explain this widespread
notion that it is unreliable? (Yes, of course I know that any-
one can edit it, so that it can never have final authority.)
--
Angus Rodgers

On 15/11/2010 20:27, Angus Rodgers wrote:
n't know
why. I'm usually impressed by the quality of the pages there.
It's pretty reliable for articles on mathematics, and, as far
as I can tell, for other subjects, too.

I agree, it has some very useful articles and the scientific stuff is
usually good.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/438900a.html.

"Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the
accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds. "

Are there some famous
examples of bad pages, which might explain this widespread
notion that it is unreliable? (Yes, of course I know that any-
one can edit it, so that it can never have final authority.)

Yes there are. I can't find any references but there was a case where a
famous person (but not so famous that I can remember who it was) was
incorrectly linked to the assassination of JFK for a joke and things
like that.

On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:43:31 -0800, wrote:

What's happened to Wikipedia? Have they gone bust? If you try to go to
it now the browser hangs or you get a blank page.

If you are even in doubt whether a web site host is reachable,
try using

http://downforeveryoneorjustme.COM/

If you cannot reach that site then it either means your Internet connection
is down, name service resolution is broken for you, there are major routing
problems on the backbine, or your ISP has cut off its connection to the
Internet for security reasons.

On Nov 15, 7:43*pm, "
wrote:
What's happened to Wikipedia? Have they gone bust? If you try to go to
it now the browser hangs or you get a blank page.

http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/wikipedia.org

On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 21:02:45 +0000, Gareth wrote:

I can't find any references but there was a case where a
famous person (but not so famous that I can remember who it was) was
incorrectly linked to the assassination of JFK for a joke and things
like that.

And person or persons unknown using a BBC computer who engaged in vandalism
of the article on President George Walker Bush.

http://business.timesonline.co.UK/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article2264150.ece?token=null&offset=12

wrote:
What's happened to Wikipedia? Have they gone bust? If you try to go to
it now the browser hangs or you get a blank page.


Wikipedia is fine here but The Pirate Bay is down.

--
Adam

In message , Gareth
writes:

On 15/11/2010 19:51, Adrian wrote:
was about as slow as a slug
with a broken leg trying to wade through treacle.

I just tried the same wikipedia.org page from two ISPs, one worked one
didn't. My fixed connection, Plus.net, failed but my mobile connection,
Three, worked fine.

Everything else I've tried today through plus.net seems ok so I don't
know why wikipedia is having problems.

Wikipedia is fine from here via PlusNet.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The sun, with all those planets revolving around it and dependent upon it, can
still ripen a bunch of grapes as it if had nothing else in the universe to do.
-Galileo Galilei, physicist and astronomer (1564-1642)

On 15/11/2010 21:00, Froot Bat wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 20:27:31 +0000, Angus Rodgers
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 12:19:40 -0800 (PST), D7666
wrote:

On Nov 15, 7:43 pm, "
wrote:
What's happened to Wikipedia? Have they gone bust? If you try to go to
it now the browser hangs or you get a blank page.

Good.

Perhaps people will stop quoting it in here and do some real research.

People are always making a joke of Wikipedia, but I don't know
why. I'm usually impressed by the quality of the pages there.
It's pretty reliable for articles on mathematics, and, as far
as I can tell, for other subjects, too. Are there some famous
examples of bad pages, which might explain this widespread
notion that it is unreliable? (Yes, of course I know that any-
one can edit it, so that it can never have final authority.)

Some of the railway stuff seems to be influenced by someone with bizarre
ideas about the need to dual gauge everything everywhere.

Most of the pages I've seen there lately have "citation needed" all
over them, or something similar.

And I've never seen book or newspaper with "citation needed", so clearly
they must be more reliable than Wikipedia!

As long as you don't take it seriously and remember it's _not_ an
encyclopaedia, it's fine, and it's a quick way to check something you
think you know or forgot, since Google can't get enough of it.

It is the best links directory I've found - some foreign airports'
official websites are hard to find with Google, being swamped with junk
hotel/car hire/travel/viagra sites.

It is also good for finding the views of loonies and obsessives on the
occasions I want them, and questions of the "what are Mongolians
supposed to call Bombay" and "is my atlas up to date in showing this
foreign city as being called Stalinville" variety.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

In message , J G Miller
writes:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 21:02:45 +0000, Gareth wrote:

I can't find any references but there was a case where a
famous person (but not so famous that I can remember who it was) was
incorrectly linked to the assassination of JFK for a joke and things
like that.

And person or persons unknown using a BBC computer who engaged in vandalism
of the article on President George Walker Bush.

http://business.timesonline.co.UK/to...ectors/media/a
rticle2264150.ece?token=null&offset=12

I read that as people using a "BBC computer" - i. e. the 6502-based home
computer of the 1980s (-:!

In general, articles on people - especially still-living people,
especially if in politics rather than other fields - are liable to be
spoiled, but on uncontroversial subjects, especially difficult science
ones, it's generally good. (IME.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The sun, with all those planets revolving around it and dependent upon it, can
still ripen a bunch of grapes as it if had nothing else in the universe to do.
-Galileo Galilei, physicist and astronomer (1564-1642)

"Angus Rodgers" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 12:19:40 -0800 (PST), D7666
wrote:

On Nov 15, 7:43 pm, "
wrote:
What's happened to Wikipedia? Have they gone bust? If you try to go to
it now the browser hangs or you get a blank page.

Good.

Perhaps people will stop quoting it in here and do some real research.

People are always making a joke of Wikipedia, but I don't know
why. I'm usually impressed by the quality of the pages there.
It's pretty reliable for articles on mathematics, and, as far
as I can tell, for other subjects, too. Are there some famous
examples of bad pages, which might explain this widespread
notion that it is unreliable? (Yes, of course I know that any-
one can edit it, so that it can never have final authority.)

I agree, it's certainly no worse than a lot of other info on the internet.

It does get vandalized but usually in very unsubtle ways that are easily
spotted and reverted back to the correct version.

I do I think they ought to totally ban editing when not logged in though.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)

To email me remove the letter vee.

"J G Miller" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 21:02:45 +0000, Gareth wrote:

I can't find any references but there was a case where a
famous person (but not so famous that I can remember who it was) was
incorrectly linked to the assassination of JFK for a joke and things
like that.

And person or persons unknown using a BBC computer who engaged in
vandalism
of the article on President George Walker Bush.

http://business.timesonline.co.UK/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article2264150.ece?token=null&offset=12


But you can't seriously say anyone (other that idiots) was misinformed by
these examples.

When you find something that sounds unlikely on Wikipedia you look at the
history and check it's not a recent edit that might be vandalism that hasn't
been reverted yet.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)

To email me remove the letter vee.

"Froot Bat" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 20:27:31 +0000, Angus Rodgers
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 12:19:40 -0800 (PST), D7666
wrote:

On Nov 15, 7:43 pm, "
wrote:
What's happened to Wikipedia? Have they gone bust? If you try to go to
it now the browser hangs or you get a blank page.

Good.

Perhaps people will stop quoting it in here and do some real research.

People are always making a joke of Wikipedia, but I don't know
why. I'm usually impressed by the quality of the pages there.
It's pretty reliable for articles on mathematics, and, as far
as I can tell, for other subjects, too. Are there some famous
examples of bad pages, which might explain this widespread
notion that it is unreliable? (Yes, of course I know that any-
one can edit it, so that it can never have final authority.)

Most of the pages I've seen there lately have "citation needed" all
over them, or something similar.

So what, when you look in any reference book or encyclopaedia there will be
plenty of information without any citation.


As long as you don't take it seriously and remember it's _not_ an
encyclopaedia, it's fine, and it's a quick way to check something you
think you know or forgot, since Google can't get enough of it.

It ranks high on Google because it's popular, not vice versa,

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)

To email me remove the letter vee.

On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 23:29:43 +0000, Brian Gregory [UK] wrote:

It ranks high on Google because it's popular, not vice versa,

Remember that popularity on Google is not primarily popularity due
to visits but popularity by other sites linking to those pages.

Go to Google and enter the search term

french military victories

Then click the "I'm feeling lucky" button rather than the "search" button.

On Nov 15, 10:21*pm, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

On 15/11/2010 21:00, Froot Bat wrote:
[snip]
As long as you don't take it seriously and remember it's _not_ an
encyclopaedia, it's fine, and it's a quick way to check something you
think you know or forgot, since Google can't get enough of it.

It is the best links directory I've found - some foreign airports'
official websites are hard to find with Google, being swamped with junk
hotel/car hire/travel/viagra sites.

It is also good for finding the views of loonies and obsessives on the
occasions I want them, and questions of the "what are Mongolians
supposed to call Bombay" and "is my atlas up to date in showing this
foreign city as being called Stalinville" variety.

I'd back all that - though, whilst I'm only too aware of the odd
priorities exhibited therein (which can as you say can prove
positively helpful at times), I'm still occasionally surprised on
finding a particularly spartan article such as this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_prime_minister

"Froot Bat" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 21:39:21 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:43:31 -0800, wrote:

What's happened to Wikipedia? Have they gone bust? If you try to go to
it now the browser hangs or you get a blank page.

If you are even in doubt whether a web site host is reachable,
try using

http://downforeveryoneorjustme.COM/

A totally pointless website, created by someone at the ultimate
pointless website, Twitter.

A website is reachable if you can reach it. If not, it's unreachable.
It doesn't make any difference if other people can access it or not.

I suppose it makes no difference if you're just going to sit there and do
nothing about it.

But if you want to report the problem and work round it or get it fixed then
it's very nice to know whether the site is down or if something else wrong.

Once you know the site isn't down you can try things like comparing results
from different DNS servers, using traceroute to establish where packets are
being misdirected etc.



If you cannot reach that site then it either means your Internet
connection
is down, name service resolution is broken for you, there are major
routing
problems on the backbine, or your ISP has cut off its connection to the
Internet for security reasons.

Or that site is down.

The discussion was about a particular site which we it had already been
established was NOT down.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)

To email me remove the letter vee.

On 15/11/2010 22:23, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , J G Miller
writes:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 21:02:45 +0000, Gareth wrote:

I can't find any references but there was a case where a
famous person (but not so famous that I can remember who it was) was
incorrectly linked to the assassination of JFK for a joke and things
like that.

And person or persons unknown using a BBC computer who engaged in
vandalism
of the article on President George Walker Bush.

http://business.timesonline.co.UK/to...ectors/media/a
rticle2264150.ece?token=null&offset=12

I read that as people using a "BBC computer" - i. e. the 6502-based home
computer of the 1980s (-:!

AOLMe too/AOL

In general, articles on people - especially still-living people,
especially if in politics rather than other fields - are liable to be
spoiled, but on uncontroversial subjects, especially difficult science
ones, it's generally good. (IME.)

In areas where I have specialist knowledge, Wikipedia is at least as
reliable as other first points of reference. And the requirement for
the sources of information to be properly cited means that you can check
the facts if you're at all doubtful...
--
Jeremy Double {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdoubl...7603834894248/

On 15/11/2010 23:29, Brian Gregory [UK] wrote:
"Froot wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 20:27:31 +0000, Angus Rodgers
wrote:
Most of the pages I've seen there lately have "citation needed" all
over them, or something similar.

So what, when you look in any reference book or encyclopaedia there will be
plenty of information without any citation.

.... which makes them less useful, because you can't follow up the
sources of the information if you're doing real research.

The reference books I use regularly DO cite their sources.
--
Jeremy Double {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdoubl...7603834894248/

On Nov 15, 9:42*pm, Poldie wrote:
On Nov 15, 7:43*pm, "

wrote:
What's happened to Wikipedia? Have they gone bust? If you try to go to
it now the browser hangs or you get a blank page.

http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/wikipedia.org

That site isn't working on my PC. Anyone else?
Cheers
Jeff

yaffle53 gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/wikipedia.org

That site isn't working on my PC. Anyone else? Cheers

Works fine from here - and tells me that wikipedia is up.

Useful site - bookmarked.

thinks
http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/d...neorjustme.com

Adrian wrote:

thinks
http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/d...neorjustme.com

Seems they'd thought of that ...

There do seem to be a number of nameserver issues around at the moment, not
sure what the problem actually is, but its bound to be human error.. grin.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
wrote:
What's happened to Wikipedia? Have they gone bust? If you try to go to
it now the browser hangs or you get a blank page.


Wikipedia is fine here but The Pirate Bay is down.

--
Adam

On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 21:43:44 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 21:02:45 +0000, Gareth wrote:

I can't find any references but there was a case where a
famous person (but not so famous that I can remember who it was) was
incorrectly linked to the assassination of JFK for a joke and things
like that.

And person or persons unknown using a BBC computer who engaged in vandalism
of the article on President George Walker Bush.

http://business.timesonline.co.UK/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article2264150.ece?token=null&offset=12

The Tories edited wikipedia to try to "prove" labour wrong....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7884121.stm
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

In article , says...
"Angus Rodgers" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 12:19:40 -0800 (PST), D7666
wrote:

On Nov 15, 7:43 pm, "
wrote:
What's happened to Wikipedia? Have they gone bust? If you try to go to
it now the browser hangs or you get a blank page.

Good.

Perhaps people will stop quoting it in here and do some real research.

People are always making a joke of Wikipedia, but I don't know
why. I'm usually impressed by the quality of the pages there.
It's pretty reliable for articles on mathematics, and, as far
as I can tell, for other subjects, too. Are there some famous
examples of bad pages, which might explain this widespread
notion that it is unreliable? (Yes, of course I know that any-
one can edit it, so that it can never have final authority.)

I agree, it's certainly no worse than a lot of other info on the internet.

It does get vandalized but usually in very unsubtle ways that are easily
spotted and reverted back to the correct version.

I do I think they ought to totally ban editing when not logged in though.



I've always wondered why they don't insist on at least a valid e-mail address (even if it's a
throwaway account on yahoo or hotmail).

They should also ban editing from any IP address that's come from a place of secondary education -
might cut down on the "XXXX IS GAY!!!!!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!" type of additions.

--
Halmyre

This is the most powerful sigfile in the world and will probably blow your head clean off.

On Nov 16, 9:01*am, Adrian wrote:
yaffle53 gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/wikipedia.org
That site isn't working on my PC. Anyone else? Cheers

Works fine from here - and tells me that wikipedia is up.

Whoosh?

Froot Bat wrote:


Great. While you're wasting your time on all that, to nil effect since
you have no ability to fix the problem (even if by some miracle you
identified it), I'm doing something more productive while I wait for
the problem to be fixed, as experience tells me it will be.

actually, often retrimming your MTU 1400 bytes can get you to sites
that 'just hang'

D7666 wrote:
On Nov 15, 7:43 pm, "
wrote:
What's happened to Wikipedia? Have they gone bust? If you try to go
to it now the browser hangs or you get a blank page.

Good.

Perhaps people will stop quoting it in here and do some real research.


There is a current vogue of denigrating Wikipedia. Whilst its format of
allowing anyone to edit content occasionally leads to erroneous or
mischievous entries, by and large it is an extremely useful reference for
those who haven't the time or knowhow to hunt down original references.
I get the feeling that there is a campaign to rubbish it, because it is
free - and so limits other publishers from making money by selling the same
information. They would clearly benefit from its being thought of as
worthless.

Jim Hawkins

Railsigns.co.uk said...

Whoosh?

Ah! The sound made by someone admitting defeat and running away very
fast.

Bye bye.

--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/

"Jim Hawkins" wrote:

There is a current vogue of denigrating Wikipedia. Whilst its format of
allowing anyone to edit content occasionally leads to erroneous or
mischievous entries, by and large it is an extremely useful reference for
those who haven't the time or knowhow to hunt down original references.


Wikipedia is dramatically better than it was only a couple of years
ago, but some still criticise it on the basis of how it used to be.

I think the improvement is a result of people actively editing
Wikipedia to correct inaccuracies rather than pointing the finger and
passively moaning about it. But some people are still whining ...

On 2010\11\16 14:51, Bruce wrote:
"Jim wrote:

There is a current vogue of denigrating Wikipedia. Whilst its format of
allowing anyone to edit content occasionally leads to erroneous or
mischievous entries, by and large it is an extremely useful reference for
those who haven't the time or knowhow to hunt down original references.


Wikipedia is dramatically better than it was only a couple of years
ago, but some still criticise it on the basis of how it used to be.

I think the improvement is a result of people actively editing
Wikipedia to correct inaccuracies rather than pointing the finger and
passively moaning about it. But some people are still whining ...


I wish someone would edit the article on Superlens... I don't understand
a word of it.

"Halmyre" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"Angus Rodgers" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 12:19:40 -0800 (PST), D7666
wrote:

On Nov 15, 7:43 pm, "
wrote:
What's happened to Wikipedia? Have they gone bust? If you try to go
to
it now the browser hangs or you get a blank page.

Good.

Perhaps people will stop quoting it in here and do some real research.

People are always making a joke of Wikipedia, but I don't know
why. I'm usually impressed by the quality of the pages there.
It's pretty reliable for articles on mathematics, and, as far
as I can tell, for other subjects, too. Are there some famous
examples of bad pages, which might explain this widespread
notion that it is unreliable? (Yes, of course I know that any-
one can edit it, so that it can never have final authority.)

I agree, it's certainly no worse than a lot of other info on the
internet.

It does get vandalized but usually in very unsubtle ways that are easily
spotted and reverted back to the correct version.

I do I think they ought to totally ban editing when not logged in though.



I've always wondered why they don't insist on at least a valid e-mail
address (even if it's a
throwaway account on yahoo or hotmail).

They should also ban editing from any IP address that's come from a place
of secondary education -
might cut down on the "XXXX IS GAY!!!!!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!" type of
additions.

Good idea.

Making it a bit easier to report repeated vandalism would help too.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)

To email me remove the letter vee.

"Froot Bat" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 00:57:04 -0000, "Brian Gregory [UK]"
wrote:
"Froot Bat" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 21:39:21 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:43:31 -0800,
wrote:

What's happened to Wikipedia? Have they gone bust? If you try to go to
it now the browser hangs or you get a blank page.

If you are even in doubt whether a web site host is reachable,
try using

http://downforeveryoneorjustme.COM/

A totally pointless website, created by someone at the ultimate
pointless website, Twitter.

A website is reachable if you can reach it. If not, it's unreachable.
It doesn't make any difference if other people can access it or not.

I suppose it makes no difference if you're just going to sit there and do
nothing about it.

And what exactly do you seriously think you can do about it? For all
your mad ping/traceroute/DNS skillz, unless you're actually a tech or
admin where the problem is, the answer is: absolutely sod all.

I wouldn't sit and do nothing. I'd employ my many years of experience
to know that, whatever the problem is, it will be fixed eventually by
the people with the responsibility and ability to fix it, and I'd get
on with something else.

If I _really_ wanted to see what was on an unavailable page I'd try
and find a cached version of it, or even the Wayback Machine, which I
use frequently for sites linked to in, say, old forum posts that no
longer exist.

But if you want to report the problem and work round it or get it fixed
then
it's very nice to know whether the site is down or if something else
wrong.

Like I said: it makes no difference.

How would you fix a website that isn't yours? How would you fix your
ISP's connection? How would you fix a problem between your ISP and the
website you want to access?

Oh that's right, for all your jerking off with your network tools, you
can't, can you.

Sometimes these people do actually listen when you email or phone them about
the problem. Less than you wouls hope I admit but they do sometimes.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)

To email me remove the letter vee.

"Froot Bat" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:52:06 +0000, Java Jive
wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:31:08 +0000, Froot Bat wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 00:57:04 -0000, "Brian Gregory [UK]"

I suppose it makes no difference if you're just going to sit there and
do
nothing about it.

And what exactly do you seriously think you can do about it? For all
your mad ping/traceroute/DNS skillz, unless you're actually a tech or
admin where the problem is, the answer is: absolutely sod all.

2) If it is not within your control you can make a better case to
whoever's responsibility it is to get it fixed.

Because only you will be aware of the problem, right?

Many organizations will reject complaints unless they receive a lot that are
the same.

For instance It took over four weeks of persistant complaints from a dozen
or so people to get Google to admit that the google mobilizer script was
corrupt on their UK based cache server yet that was a total outage of all
mobilized search results in the UK. Somone has to complain or nothing
happens.


Like I said: it makes no difference.

Like I and he said, it helps to know where the problem lies.

Say it all you like, knowing that other people can access a site
doesn't tell you where the problem lies and doesn't help you access
the site, it just tells you the site isn't down.

It tells you if it's worth going round to someone elses house to use a
different ISP, or into town to try using a WiFi hotspot.


You still can't access the site, regardless of what you _think_ you
know about the problem. You still have to find something else to do
while you wait till it's fixed, whether you manage to track down
someone to report it to or not.

Your argument rests on the ridiculous premise that you and you alone
are aware that there's a problem and where it is, and without you
saving the day the problem will continue.

That's your philosophy is it.
Some other mug can do all the work.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)

To email me remove the letter vee.