This Person Could Be Your Match!

This just in from my friend (who really exists), from the online dating trenches. And I do mean trenches, based on who Match.com seems to think is an appropriate mate for her:



Now, I'm not one to cast aspersions, but I'll do it anyway:

1. I think it's obvious to everyone that if this man's photo weren't so closely cropped, his button-down shirt would most certainly be revealed to be a short-sleeved button-down shirt. With a tie. He may or may not also be sporting a pocket protector. The problem is, unlike Zachary Levi (a.k.a. Chuck Bartowski of NBC's Chuck), he is NOT successfully rocking the Nerd Herd look.



2. He is 20 years older than my friend. Maybe if Liam Neeson (God rest Natasha Richardson's soul...poor family!) were to go back on the market, I could approve of my friend dating such an oldster. But this guy is no Liam Neeson. There, I said it.



3. Perhaps most importantly, the dude can't take a hint. My friend has already declined his "wink" on a few occasions. I have no idea what that means, but it sounds to me like the lady has made it clear she is not interested. Yet he persists. And his persistence is upsetting her -- so much so that she has sent her friends his photo to aid the police in the investigation in case she goes missing after a routine trip to the mall. NOT COOL!

Your Friends are Retaired

I'm not sure whether to be insulted by this, or thankful that I am not a member of this guy's inner circle...


This affinity among "retarted" people is yet more evidence of the phenomenon I discussed earlier about how people on Facebook who can't spell attract as friends other people who can't spell. Hopefully none of them are using Match.com.

Ladies' Asses May Soon Be World's Largest Killer

I don't know what is going on with Google News, but I keep seeing headlines with mismatched graphics in my news list.

For instance, yesterday's story about a norovirus outbreak on a Holland American cruise ship showed up in my headline list with a story from one source and a rather unfortunate (albeit topically appropriate) image from a different source (HealthKnowItAll.com).

Today, I see this in my headline list:



Whaaa? Ladies' asses may soon be world's largest killer?

The ass graphic belongs to a story on eOntarioNow about a "massive grant" awarded to the University of Rochester to research colon cancer. The headline itself points to an article on Voice of America about a new World Health Organization (WHO) report that estimates cancer will be the leading killer by 2010. The WHO report makes no reference to the colon cancer grant to the University of Rochester, nor to ladies' asses.

Imprecision Part 2: Electric Boogaloo

So the other day I was complaining about Microsoft's namby-pamby approach to specificity in its Online Help. Apparently Twitter has jumped on the vagueness bandwagon as well, as I just discovered when trying to do, uh...something on their site:



Something is technically wrong.

Where do I begin? With the "something"? Nah, too easy. Let's talk about that "technically", shall we?

Saying something is "technically" wrong on a Web site -- calling attention to the "technical" part -- is stupid. I apologize to all the stupid people out there who don't like being degraded by being mentioned in the same post as this Twitter error page.

But seriously, how else could something go wrong on a Web site, that would pop an error page? Aesthetically?

We're sorry, the page you asked to see is too ugly to be seen by human eyes. Check back when the user has improved his background image.

As much as I hate the wording of their message, I hate the graphics less, although they too suffer from not having a clear storyline.

Have you come across any ambiguous error messages lately? Share yours in the comments.

(Image Credit: Twitter)

How Much Do You Care About Spelling?

Fresh from the trenches of online dating, a dear (and smart and hot and funny and totally wonderful, by the way) girlfriend of mine reports disappointment not so much in many of the men themselves, for their failure to spell basic words correctly, but rather in the technology.

If Match.com won't add spellchecking tools to the text entry fields on their site (considering how important first impressions are in the world of dating, and all), then they should add one final question to the "About Me" questionnaire:

How much do you care about spelling?
A. Alot.
B. A lot.
C. Not much.
D. Speeling?

For my friend, she could automatically exclude potential matches who answered C or D, and she could consider respondents who selected A on a case-by-case basis.

If you answered B, then you might be a suitable match for my friend. You further qualify if you have no felony record, do not still live with your ex-wife/ex-girlfriend/mother/some other married couple, have not recently impregnated anyone, are not in a band, and do not consider marijuana a food group. If this sounds like you, leave your email address in the comments and I shall forward it to my friend for consideration.

P.S. When I say "my friend," I do really mean a person other than myself. She exists. And is awesome! And is a fabulous speller. Among other things.

Image: Technobuzz.net

iPhone iNtervention

Do you ever see someone using a piece of technology so antiquated that you just want to take the person aside, wrest the brick phone from his or her hand, chuck it off a seaside precipice, and then march them down to the nearest Apple store to buy them an iPhone with your own money just so you no longer have to see the person suffer under the weight of their outmoded device?

OMG -- me too! (Except here at TEMPORARY RAGE, we do not endorse throwing electronics into the ocean. Littering is bad, mmm-kay?)

I've got this friend. We'll call him Bob. Bob's cell phone seems to have been manufactured circa 1989. Miraculously, it still functions, if by "functions" we limit our discussion to making and receiving phone calls and text messages. It rings only sporadically. Not to suggest that Bob is unpopular -- quite the opposite. But Bob's phone rings only when it feels like it.

In addition to its fair-weather approach to functionality, Bob's phone is fugly. And I don't mean fugly in the Go Fug Yourself sense where fugly is the new pretty. Oh no. This phone is bruised, battered, and appears to be held together with duct tape and rubber bands. Perhaps Macgyver could transform its raw materials into something useful to elude capture by the bad guys, but as it is...its only value appears to be comic relief at social gatherings, and perhaps in a few more years it will have resale value as an antique relic from the Days of Yore.

I'm not quite sure what bothers me so much about Bob's relentless clinging to his ridiculous albatross of a phone. Perhaps there is a name for it in the DSM-IV. I suspect it has something to do with my borderline obsession with my iPhone.

Yeah, yeah, you've heard it all before. People who heretofore exhibited the usual, comfortable level of indifference towards most if not all topics in life, suddenly transformed into Apple bumper-sticker sporting, iPhone evangelizing nutjobs after their first few hours cradling a shiny new 3G.

Don't get me wrong. I love my iPhone. I cherish it, I buy trinkets for it, I go on vacations with it. I have started a wave of iPhone adoption in the office and keep our iPhone team spirit strong with weekly emails about the latest, greatest new iPhone apps. I wouldn't say I'm *completely* obsessed, but I can see how someone who has never had a smartphone could forget to eat or bathe once they get started with an iPhone. And it's not that I wish that on Bob...dude needs to keep clean and well fed. On the other hand, just think of all the YouTube, Facebook, Urban Spoon, and Tetris he is missing out on!

Have you ever staged an intervention for a technologically backward friend, relative or colleague? (Or have you been the subject of such an intervention?) Share your story in the comments.

(Photo Credit: Motorola)

Imprecision Is Periodically Not a Good Thing

So there I was, crashing and then restarting Microsoft Word 2007 every few minutes this afternoon. Making painfully slow progress on the document I am trying to write. Dropping F-bombs under my breath each time the dreaded "Microsoft Word has encountered a problem and needs to annoy the crap out of you" window appeared.

About the fifth time it happened, a new window popped up, informing me that some diagnostic activities had been performed and that if I would just follow this handy link, I would learn of the results.

Follow the link I did. I was taken to this page on the Microsoft Web site, offering me insight into a number of topics:

Memory Diagnostic — No problems found

Compatibility Diagnostic — No problems found

Disk Diagnostic — No problems found

Update Diagnostic — Unable to access a required file

The Update Diagnostic was unable to run because it requires a file that you have chosen not to download. To give Microsoft Office permission to download this file, do one of the following in one of these 2007 Office release programs:

• Access, Excel, PowerPoint, or Word
  1. Click the Microsoft Office Button, and then click Access Options, Excel Options, PowerPoint Options, or Word Options.
  2. Click Trust Center, click Advanced Trust Center Settings, and then click Privacy Options.
  3. Select the Download a file periodically that helps determine system problems check box.
  4. Wait about a week to allow the file to be downloaded, and then run Microsoft Office Diagnostics again.

Hang on a second...or, perhaps I should say, "Hang on about a week."

There is so much wrong with that Update Diagnostic passage I scarcely know where to begin.

First of all: "...it requires a file that you have chosen not to download." Way to play the blame game, Microsoft. I don't remember being prompted to specify that particular user preference lurking deep in the bowels of the Microsoft Word Options settings when I installed the software. Because of my long-standing love for the many and random dialog boxes you pop (and my appreciation of the fact that you want to get to know me better by analyzing my user data), I say yes to everything you ask me. Software-wise -- for you, Microsoft -- I'm what you might call a cheap date.

But getting back to those privacy options: "Select the Download a file periodically that helps determine system problems check box." Download a file periodically? I can just imagine the conversation in the writers' room when they were trying to nail down the wording for that user preference.

David: How about 'Download a file that helps determine system problems'?

Susan: That makes it sound like we're only downloading the file once. It says here in the spec that there will be updated diagnostic files over time.

David: You're right. How about 'Download a file weekly that helps determine...'?

Susan: 'Weekly' sounds a bit excessive - as if we're anticipating users will have weekly problems with Word, which would never happen!

David: Besides, who knows how often Engineering will get around to creating new diagnostic files. Monthly?

Susan: Still too...precise.

David: Every once in a while?

Susan: Now you're getting somewhere!

And once you've selected that ambiguously worded checkbox... "Wait about a week to allow the file to be downloaded." Seriously? Wait "about a week"?! Either that's one damn big file to take a week to download, or...could it be? Could it be those diagnostic files are deployed on a weekly basis after all? Or, rather, on an "about a week"ly basis.

It's hijinks like this that give Microsoft a bad name.

Have you encountered any particularly cryptic, vague, or otherwise infuriating dialog box options or software instructions? (Or, if you are a technical writer, have you had to tap dance around the cold, hard truth to make your software manuals more palatable?) Share your story in the comments.