Bogus 'support' article about Firebug + Yahoo Mail

Does anyone understand how these kinds of articles are created:
https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Firefox+crashes+when+using+Yahoo+Mail

That one is simply incorrect on all counts.

jjb
0
John
1/21/2010 10:32:08 PM
mozilla.support.firefox 24319 articles. 10 followers. Post Follow

13 Replies
322 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 49

John J Barton expressed an opinion:
> Does anyone understand how these kinds of articles are created:
> https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Firefox+crashes+when+using+Yahoo+Mail
>
>  That one is simply incorrect on all counts.

Basically, it says that, as of Thursday 30 of July, 2009, in earlier
versions of both Firefox and Firebug, there was a bug that cause Firefox
to crash once in a while, and it was fixed, as stated, by upgrading to
the then current version of Firebug.

"To prevent the crashes, either disable Firebug for Yahoo!� Mail or
install the latest beta from http://getfirebug.com/"

I don't see a problem with that support page.

-- 
Usenet Netiquette Rule #10: R-E-S-P-E-C-T!
KristleBawl's Taglines by Tagzilla 0.066.2
http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmailnews.html#tagzilla
Instabird development http://www.instantbird.com/
0
KristleBawl
1/21/2010 10:53:05 PM
KristleBawl wrote:
> John J Barton expressed an opinion:
>> Does anyone understand how these kinds of articles are created:
>> https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Firefox+crashes+when+using+Yahoo+Mail 
>>
>>
>>  That one is simply incorrect on all counts.
> 
> Basically, it says that, as of Thursday 30 of July, 2009, in earlier
> versions of both Firefox and Firebug, there was a bug that cause Firefox
> to crash once in a while, and it was fixed, as stated, by upgrading to
> the then current version of Firebug.

Below is the entire text of the article. The date is never mentioned. 
The version of Firefox and Firebug are not listed. The statements in the 
article are not limited in time or version. The date you quote does not 
even appear on the web page.

------------------
This article describes why Firefox may close itself unexpectedly when 
using Yahoo!� Mail. For problems with Firefox crashing when not using 
Yahoo!� Mail, see Firefox crashes
Windows:
Yahoo!� Messenger

The Yahoo!� Application State plugin can cause crashes. You'll need to 
disable this plugin.

    1. From the menu at the top of the Firefox windowbar, select 
FileFirefox and then select the ExitQuit FirefoxQuit menu item.
    2. Open My Computer or Windows Explorer.
    3. Browse to the directory: C:\Program Files\Yahoo!\shared
    4. Delete the file npYState.dll. Now that this plugin has been 
removed, Firefox may stop crashing when using Yahoo!� Mail.

Removing the plugin will not affect your ability to use Yahoo! Mail.

Firebug

Firebug can cause crashes when it's enabled for Yahoo!� Mail. You may 
receive a message mentioning jsd3250.dll.

To prevent the crashes, either disable Firebug for Yahoo!� Mail or 
install the latest beta from http://getfirebug.com/
------------------

> 
> "To prevent the crashes, either disable Firebug for Yahoo!� Mail or
> install the latest beta from http://getfirebug.com/"
> 
> I don't see a problem with that support page.

But in fact neither of these changes are needed because the information 
in the article is no longer correct.  If it ever was correct, which I doubt.

jjb
0
John
1/21/2010 11:22:05 PM
John J Barton expressed an opinion:
> KristleBawl wrote:
>> John J Barton expressed an opinion:
>>> Does anyone understand how these kinds of articles are created:
https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Firefox+crashes+when+using+Yahoo+Mail
>>>
>>> That one is simply incorrect on all counts.
>>
>> Basically, it says that, as of Thursday 30 of July, 2009, in
>> earlier versions of both Firefox and Firebug, there was a bug that
>> cause Firefox to crash once in a while, and it was fixed, as
>> stated, by upgrading to the then current version of Firebug.
>
> Below is the entire text of the article. The date is never mentioned.
>  The version of Firefox and Firebug are not listed. The statements in
> the article are not limited in time or version. The date you quote
> does not even appear on the web page.
>
> ------------------
/snipped quoted webpage text/
> ------------------
>>
>> "To prevent the crashes, either disable Firebug for Yahoo!� Mail
>> or install the latest beta from http://getfirebug.com/"
>>
>> I don't see a problem with that support page.
>
> But in fact neither of these changes are needed because the
> information in the article is no longer correct. If it ever was
> correct, which I doubt.

The date is in the small print *after* the article, near the bottom of
the page. While it's true that the versions in question were not
specified, Firebug has had at least 5 more versions since that date. I'm
pretty sure that anyone experiencing that bug 6 months ago probably
updated by now, but many people delay upgrades if they are not
experiencing any problems. The article would still apply if someone
hasn't updated Firebug in all that time and recently added Yahoo! mail.

I'm still confused, though, about why the support article would bother
you so much. If it doesn't apply to my situation, I simply ignore it and
more on to another.

-- 
A moment's insight is sometimes worth a life's experience.
KristleBawl's Taglines by Tagzilla 0.066.2
http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmailnews.html#tagzilla
Instabird development http://www.instantbird.com/
0
KristleBawl
1/22/2010 12:28:45 AM
On 10-01-21 5:32 PM, John J Barton wrote:
> Does anyone understand how these kinds of articles are created:
> https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Firefox+crashes+when+using+Yahoo+Mail
>
> That one is simply incorrect on all counts.

You should be able to find references in the article source [1] and/or 
the article history [2].

[1]<https://support.mozilla.com/tiki-pagehistory.php?locale=en-US&page=Firefox%20crashes%20when%20using%20Yahoo%20Mail&source=0>
[2]<https://support.mozilla.com/tiki-pagehistory.php?locale=en-US&page=Firefox%20crashes%20when%20using%20Yahoo%20Mail>

Looking at the source, to forum threads are referenced:
https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/forum/1/26115#threadId26899
https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/forum/1/33897

Remember that support.mozilla.com is a wiki. If you think that info is 
out of date or incorrect, feel free to update the article. For 
instructions, see <https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Editing+articles>.


-- 
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
List-owner: support-firefox, support-thunderbird, test-multimedia
Keeper of the Knowledge Base: <https://support.mozilla.com/kb/>
0
Chris
1/22/2010 2:03:52 AM
KristleBawl wrote:

> 
> The date is in the small print *after* the article, near the bottom of
> the page. While it's true that the versions in question were not
> specified, Firebug has had at least 5 more versions since that date. I'm
> pretty sure that anyone experiencing that bug 6 months ago probably
> updated by now, but many people delay upgrades if they are not
> experiencing any problems. The article would still apply if someone
> hasn't updated Firebug in all that time and recently added Yahoo! mail.
> 
> I'm still confused, though, about why the support article would bother
> you so much. If it doesn't apply to my situation, I simply ignore it and
> more on to another.
> 

But how can I tell from the article if it applies to my situation or 
not? As you say the version numbers and not given and the date is tiny 
(I never saw it). If you read the article and believe it, it says 
"Firebug crashes Firefox".  It does not say, "If you are running Firebug 
1.2 on Firefox 2.0, then Firefox crashes", which by the way was the last 
combination with the problem described.  We are now at Firebug 1.5 and 
Firefox 3.6.

The article can only help a very, very tiny number of users, but every 
reader comes away thinking that Firebug can crash Firefox. People on the 
Firebug and Firefox team are working hard to ensure that doesn't happen. 
  They don't deserve a bad mark on the record.

jjb
0
John
1/22/2010 9:13:19 PM
On 01/22/2010 01:13 PM John J Barton scribbled:

> KristleBawl wrote:
> 
>> The date is in the small print *after* the article, near the bottom of
>> the page. While it's true that the versions in question were not
>> specified, Firebug has had at least 5 more versions since that date. I'm
>> pretty sure that anyone experiencing that bug 6 months ago probably
>> updated by now, but many people delay upgrades if they are not
>> experiencing any problems. The article would still apply if someone
>> hasn't updated Firebug in all that time and recently added Yahoo! mail.
>>
>> I'm still confused, though, about why the support article would bother
>> you so much. If it doesn't apply to my situation, I simply ignore it and
>> more on to another.
>>
> 
> But how can I tell from the article if it applies to my situation or 
> not? As you say the version numbers and not given and the date is tiny 
> (I never saw it). If you read the article and believe it, it says 
> "Firebug crashes Firefox".  It does not say, "If you are running Firebug 
> 1.2 on Firefox 2.0, then Firefox crashes", which by the way was the last 
> combination with the problem described.  We are now at Firebug 1.5 and 
> Firefox 3.6.

you can always demand your money back, or, maybe help out by
contributing time to write a manual or help update the KB...

> 
> The article can only help a very, very tiny number of users, but every 
> reader comes away thinking that Firebug can crash Firefox.

can you cite any numbers to back that statement up?

 People on the
> Firebug and Firefox team are working hard to ensure that doesn't happen. 
>   They don't deserve a bad mark on the record.

I for one don't see any bad marks around - someone else whining?

0
goodwin
1/22/2010 11:38:12 PM
goodwin wrote:
> On 01/22/2010 01:13 PM John J Barton scribbled:
> 
>> KristleBawl wrote:
>>
>>> The date is in the small print *after* the article, near the bottom of
>>> the page. While it's true that the versions in question were not
>>> specified, Firebug has had at least 5 more versions since that date. I'm
>>> pretty sure that anyone experiencing that bug 6 months ago probably
>>> updated by now, but many people delay upgrades if they are not
>>> experiencing any problems. The article would still apply if someone
>>> hasn't updated Firebug in all that time and recently added Yahoo! mail.
>>>
>>> I'm still confused, though, about why the support article would bother
>>> you so much. If it doesn't apply to my situation, I simply ignore it and
>>> more on to another.
>>>
>> But how can I tell from the article if it applies to my situation or 
>> not? As you say the version numbers and not given and the date is tiny 
>> (I never saw it). If you read the article and believe it, it says 
>> "Firebug crashes Firefox".  It does not say, "If you are running Firebug 
>> 1.2 on Firefox 2.0, then Firefox crashes", which by the way was the last 
>> combination with the problem described.  We are now at Firebug 1.5 and 
>> Firefox 3.6.
> 
> you can always demand your money back, or, maybe help out by
> contributing time to write a manual or help update the KB...

I corrected the page, but my experience with similar systems in the past 
is the admins don't want developers to change these kinds of pages 
because the reflect user experiences, not developer expectations.

> 
>> The article can only help a very, very tiny number of users, but every 
>> reader comes away thinking that Firebug can crash Firefox.
> 
> can you cite any numbers to back that statement up?

Yes, look at https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/statistics/addon/1843
Of the 2.7M users about 6000 are using 1.2. Multiply by the probability 
that they use Yahoo Mail and enable Firebug on yahoo mail.

> 
>  People on the
>> Firebug and Firefox team are working hard to ensure that doesn't happen. 
>>   They don't deserve a bad mark on the record.
> 
> I for one don't see any bad marks around - someone else whining?

Yes, that is me.
jjb


0
John
1/23/2010 12:06:25 AM
On 01/22/2010 04:06 PM John J Barton scribbled:

> goodwin wrote:
> 
>>> The article can only help a very, very tiny number of users, but every 
>>> reader comes away thinking that Firebug can crash Firefox.
>> can you cite any numbers to back that statement up?
> 
> Yes, look at https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/statistics/addon/1843
> Of the 2.7M users about 6000 are using 1.2.

if you say so but how do they really know this - firebug phones home?

 Multiply by the probability
> that they use Yahoo Mail

that number is derived where?

 and enable Firebug on yahoo mail.

I don't use firebug - didn't have a clue about it until I read this
thread.  My impression of yahoo users in general is that they are too
lame to even think about it, only my opinion.
Your concern is touching but the math doesn't cut it...

you can't seriously think the knowledgebase can keep up with extension
developments, can you?
0
goodwin
1/23/2010 1:52:28 AM
John J Barton expressed an opinion:
> goodwin wrote:
>> On 01/22/2010 01:13 PM John J Barton scribbled:
>>> KristleBawl wrote:
>>>> The date is in the small print *after* the article, near the
>>>> bottom of the page. While it's true that the versions in
>>>> question were not specified, Firebug has had at least 5 more
>>>> versions since that date. I'm pretty sure that anyone
>>>> experiencing that bug 6 months ago probably updated by now, but
>>>> many people delay upgrades if they are not experiencing any
>>>> problems. The article would still apply if someone hasn't
>>>> updated Firebug in all that time and recently added Yahoo!
>>>> mail.
>>>>
>>>> I'm still confused, though, about why the support article would
>>>> bother you so much. If it doesn't apply to my situation, I
>>>> simply ignore it and more on to another.
>>>>
>>> But how can I tell from the article if it applies to my situation
>>> or not? As you say the version numbers and not given and the date
>>> is tiny (I never saw it). If you read the article and believe it,
>>> it says "Firebug crashes Firefox". It does not say, "If you are
>>> running Firebug 1.2 on Firefox 2.0, then Firefox crashes", which
>>> by the way was the last combination with the problem described.
>>> We are now at Firebug 1.5 and Firefox 3.6.
>>
>> you can always demand your money back, or, maybe help out by
>> contributing time to write a manual or help update the KB...
>
> I corrected the page, but my experience with similar systems in the
> past is the admins don't want developers to change these kinds of
> pages because the reflect user experiences, not developer
> expectations.

Oh, good, I was going to suggest you add the version numbers. :)

BTW, I do get it now. Thanks! ;-)

-- 
A moment's insight is sometimes worth a life's experience.
KristleBawl's Taglines by Tagzilla 0.066.2
http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmailnews.html#tagzilla
Instabird development http://www.instantbird.com/
0
KristleBawl
1/23/2010 2:22:27 AM
goodwin wrote:
> On 01/22/2010 04:06 PM John J Barton scribbled:
> 
>> goodwin wrote:
>>
>>>> The article can only help a very, very tiny number of users, but every 
>>>> reader comes away thinking that Firebug can crash Firefox.
>>> can you cite any numbers to back that statement up?
>> Yes, look at https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/statistics/addon/1843
>> Of the 2.7M users about 6000 are using 1.2.
> 
> if you say so but how do they really know this - firebug phones home?

Yes all extensions on addons.mozilla.org have this built in.

> 
>  Multiply by the probability
>> that they use Yahoo Mail
> 
> that number is derived where?
> 
>  and enable Firebug on yahoo mail.
> 
> I don't use firebug - didn't have a clue about it until I read this
> thread.  My impression of yahoo users in general is that they are too
> lame to even think about it, only my opinion.
> Your concern is touching but the math doesn't cut it...

? Perhaps you meant: Yahoo users are not likely to want to apply Firebug 
to Yahoo Mail. That is what I was trying to say with the probability above.

> 
> you can't seriously think the knowledgebase can keep up with extension
> developments, can you?

I seriously think that the knowledgebase can be accurate about 
extensions and not spread untrue rumors about their impact on Firefox. 
In this case, simply including the version number from user reports 
would have been adequate. But you can also go to the next level, make 
the knowledgebase truly helpful for extension users by helping them 
contact the extension developers with problems.

jjb
0
John
1/25/2010 10:04:44 PM
In <news:S8qdneUCde_YiMPWnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@mozilla.org>,
John J Barton <johnjbarton@johnjbarton.com> wrote:

> goodwin wrote:
> > On 01/22/2010 04:06 PM John J Barton scribbled:
  
> >> Yes, look at https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/statistics/addon/1843
> >> Of the 2.7M users about 6000 are using 1.2.  
> > 
> > if you say so but how do they really know this - firebug phones
> > home?  
> 
> Yes all extensions on addons.mozilla.org have this built in.

For the sake of clarity, all extensions installed from AMO specify using
the AMO server if/when updates are checked for.  The on-by-default
automagic update checking done by Fx is enough for Mozilla to track the
average number of daily users of an extension by version number, but the
extension itself isn't phoning home.

-- 
»Q«                                                              /"\
                                      ASCII Ribbon Campaign      \ /
                                       against html e-mail        X
                                     <http://asciiribbon.org/>   / \
0
UTF
1/26/2010 3:27:47 AM
On 01/25/2010 02:04 PM John J Barton scribbled:

> goodwin wrote:
>> On 01/22/2010 04:06 PM John J Barton scribbled:

> 
> ? Perhaps you meant: Yahoo users are not likely to want to apply Firebug 
> to Yahoo Mail. 

No, thats not what I meant - no matter...

> 
>> you can't seriously think the knowledgebase can keep up with extension
>> developments, can you?
> 
> I seriously think that the knowledgebase can be accurate about 
> extensions and not spread untrue rumors about their impact on Firefox. 

herein lies the rub for me - your contention that the info is "untrue
rumors" and/or bogus.  Stupidity is one thing, maliciousness quite
another.  Granted  the KB lack of timeliness in this case, I see no call
for foaming on about what, a conspiracy?

> In this case, simply including the version number from user reports 
> would have been adequate.

The way you were going on, nothing short of the gallows would seem adequate.
But then, I've had bad days on usenet myself - sometimes something gets
my dander up but the next morning, I wonder what I was so bent out of
shape about.

 But you can also go to the next level, make
> the knowledgebase truly helpful for extension users by helping them 
> contact the extension developers with problems.
> 

The purpose /use of the knowledgebase should probably be discussed
elsewhere - this is a support group for a browser.
0
goodwin
1/26/2010 5:57:42 AM
goodwin wrote:
> On 01/25/2010 02:04 PM John J Barton scribbled:
> 
>> goodwin wrote:
>>> On 01/22/2010 04:06 PM John J Barton scribbled:
> 
>> ? Perhaps you meant: Yahoo users are not likely to want to apply Firebug 
>> to Yahoo Mail. 
> 
> No, thats not what I meant - no matter...
> 
>>> you can't seriously think the knowledgebase can keep up with extension
>>> developments, can you?
>> I seriously think that the knowledgebase can be accurate about 
>> extensions and not spread untrue rumors about their impact on Firefox. 
> 
> herein lies the rub for me - your contention that the info is "untrue
> rumors" and/or bogus.  Stupidity is one thing, maliciousness quite
> another.  Granted  the KB lack of timeliness in this case, I see no call
> for foaming on about what, a conspiracy?

I did say anything about stupidity or maliciousness.  I only said what I 
said.

> 
>> In this case, simply including the version number from user reports 
>> would have been adequate.
> 
> The way you were going on, nothing short of the gallows would seem adequate.
> But then, I've had bad days on usenet myself - sometimes something gets
> my dander up but the next morning, I wonder what I was so bent out of
> shape about.

Yes, I admit it: I feel strongly that our work on Firebug should not be 
maligned, whether on purpose or by accident or even by impression, does 
not matter.

> 
>  But you can also go to the next level, make
>> the knowledgebase truly helpful for extension users by helping them 
>> contact the extension developers with problems.
>>
> 
> The purpose /use of the knowledgebase should probably be discussed
> elsewhere - this is a support group for a browser.

In that case I'm sorry, I did not know of any alternative.

jjb
0
John
1/26/2010 9:29:48 PM
Reply: