Talk:937: TornadoGuard

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search

The image text is also a reference to another comic: In this comic, the bug was that the speech recognition fails on a young child's voice. So the team attempts to reproduce a child in order to fix the bug and get the test subject. The bug report is closed as cannot fixed with the reason being 'could not reproduce'. (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2012‎ (UTC) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

And it's happened. See Four-star rated "Tornado by American Red Cross" app, current top review reads "I did not find this app useful at all. There was a tornado watch for eight hours in my town, a tornado warning for 30 minutes, and there were no warnings or alerts visible on this app." 16:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

ROFL ;) If this picture is real it should be added to this explain. Check the Customer Review here: itunes, I am sure it's just a reaction on this comic.--Dgbrt (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

According to 1098, it's still an OK app. 22:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

'could not reproduce'!topic/sci.geo.earthquakes/kTDkMMbC_mw

I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This is why looking at both the positive and negative reviews is good practice. -- 17:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It struck me when I read it that it was also suggesting that there are probably other people out there who COULDN'T leave a negative review, because the app failed them and they were killed in the tornado. If the program not working means you're likely to die, then only people with positive reviews will survive to leave reviews, giving the wrong impression: look, the are 3 times as many positive reviews as negative ones! I'll take it!" It seems like there must be some reason he chose something so deadly as a tornado; it could have been anything, and the other reasons would still have worked. 00:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

True to life if you've ever checked a travel insurance policy review site. Everything is rated five stars because of idiots leaving reviews that went "I didn't need it, thank God, but the feeling of security is invaluable." 09:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Neither the explanation nor the comment seem to realize that the app does not claim to warn of approaching tornadoes. The description actually indicates it notifies of "tornado warnings", which are PSA (public service announcements) broadcasted on TV or over-the-air radio when there's an official tornado detected in a certain area. So technically even the 1-star comment is either wrong or incomplete -- we don't know whether a tornado warning was issued in this particular case. Furthermore, one of positive comments indicates one can setup geofencing locations in the app, and in the case of the 1-star comment we don't know whether this was setup properly or not by the user. Far from blaming the victim, this is actually a real issue on the receiving end of bug reports. Software developers often have to deal with laconic explanations of what went wrong, lacking proper context and details that would make the bug reports actually meaningful. A proper bug report is supposed to give as much context as possible, which a single short sentence in a feedback/rating screen does not allow for. Ralfoide (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

My favorite bug report I recieved (replaced some terms in this quote): "You need to adapt ASAP so we can adapt spec. <basic feature name> on the <term similar to the tools name> and form thereby a nice looking <type of expected output>" - sent in by a user via email, with no context, greetings, etc. When I asked to please specify the issue, I did not get an answer. --Lupo (talk) 06:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)