Sorry, I don't understand. If the user can't see "zarro boogs" on the page, why would they Google "zarro boogs?" And if they don't, how are they going to find the legacy of comments on StackOverflow, for example, that would tell them that message means no bugs were found but can be caused by a misconfigured backing store?
> So do you think maybe there's a lesson in here about building a culture around being opaque to outsiders?
In an era where global text search utilities can clear up any confusion within 5 seconds, I don't think that error message teaches us a lesson one way or the other on the question of opacity. It's not a choice I would make for my own project to maximize adoption, but I've never gotten the sense it hurts bugzilla's adoption (the biggest competition I've seen for bugzilla these days are options like Jira that don't require self-hosting the installation, which is a far more significant feature axis than whether the error message is funny).
Sorry, I don't understand. If the user can't see "zarro boogs" on the page, why would they Google "zarro boogs?" And if they don't, how are they going to find the legacy of comments on StackOverflow, for example, that would tell them that message means no bugs were found but can be caused by a misconfigured backing store?
> So do you think maybe there's a lesson in here about building a culture around being opaque to outsiders?
In an era where global text search utilities can clear up any confusion within 5 seconds, I don't think that error message teaches us a lesson one way or the other on the question of opacity. It's not a choice I would make for my own project to maximize adoption, but I've never gotten the sense it hurts bugzilla's adoption (the biggest competition I've seen for bugzilla these days are options like Jira that don't require self-hosting the installation, which is a far more significant feature axis than whether the error message is funny).