Strategic advantage

Being a programmer (or "programmeuse," in local parlance) has certain perks.  One of them being that you can crunch your own data without too much fuss...or even using Excel in ways that the laws of Mathematics and Boolean Logic never intended.  Another being that you can help other folks do the same--with the added bonus that they think you're a genius.

But one definite downside is the frustration of discovering broken code...even when it's code that you didn't write.  Particularly code that's broken in front of the whole Internet 'n Everybody.  By which I of course mean websites with glaring errors.  From the standpoint of someone browsing the site in question, it's easy to blame the lazy/incompetent web developer(s). 

As a programmer, however, one has more tools available for sussing out the real problem.  One only has to submit the "Contact" form (assuming it works) or an email (assuming it doesn't) to let the website owner know:

1. Hey, there's a problem with your website.
2. Here is the specific error message (or bug).
3. This is how you reproduce the problem yourself.
4. (The biggie) This is likely the root cause.  Debug here first.

I realise that no one truly enjoys learning about a problem, even after accepting Dr. Demming and the doctrine of continuous improvement into her/his heart.   And certainly we live in a world where anecdote, opinion, and ideology carry too much weight in the face of data, experience, and even logic.  The person on the receiving end of that feedback has no way of knowing whether I'm Sir Tim Berners-Lee or whether I've just written my first "Hello, World" web page (if even that).  I get it.

But is a "Thanks for letting us know that you had a problem; we're looking into it" too much to ask?  You'd think not.  But then you'd be wrong.

Please don't think that I'm sulking.  This isn't the first time that this sort of thing has happened to me.  The feedback took less than five minutes of my day:  I don't begrudge that--particularly when it involves keeping my fellow web-mongers honest.  That's to the benefit of the entire guild, right?

Yet I had an actual reason for visiting the website in question--namely, following up on a conversation I had with someone earlier in the week.  (For the record, they're not a client or even a potential client.  That relationship is sacred, and thus off-limits for blogging.)

Now, I don't judge organisations (particularly those that operate on a proverbial shoestring) by website errors...although errors certainly raise some warning signals regarding the client review process.  But I think it's perfectly fair to judge organisations on how quickly they respond to negative (though hopefully constructive) feedback.  Lack of response is symptomatic of any number of organisational ills, including (but not limited to):

• Generic indifference
• Bureaucratic sclerosis
• Chronic under-staffing/under-training
• Lack of planning/budget for asset maintenance (and websites are assets, dagnabbit!)
• A culture that penalises mistakes

In my case, the experience turns out to be a silver lining.  It's a very quick-n-dirty way of learning, "These people are (probably) time-wasters."  Someone in another line of work might have to endure several meetings (or even worse) to arrive at the same conclusion.  If, in a couple of weeks, the problem still exists, I can scratch out the "probably."  Or if, in a few weeks more, I'm on the receiving end of their spam...Ooof.  In either case, that five minutes more than paid for itself.

Programmers have an unfortunate reputation of being too code-centric to be successful businesspeople.  But, boy howdy, this is one case when groking the bits definitely provides a leg up on other trades.  [pats self fatuously on head for making it through Programmer School]