You'd think you'd think

[j4]

So when I find an incredibly incorrect (i.e. containing at least 3 errors, depending on how you count them) URL in this year's Awards issue of the Reporter, I email the Reporter editrix and say "I say, this is a bit wrong," and she emails back cc:ing in the person who should have Got It Right (let's call him Mr Wrong) and saying "Yes, this is wrong. Mr Wrong, you should have checked it." All well and good, though I suspect Mr Wrong wasn't too pleased to be outed to me as the culprit.

But then I decide "What the heck, I'll open this interesting-looking can marked 'Worms' check the rest of the URLs as well, just in case." And I find an alarming number of other errors, and embarrassingly many of them are Cambridge University department/college websites. Which is a good thing in some ways, because it means we stand a chance of telling the people who supplied the wrong URLs, and in some cases getting them to put redirects in (this is an annoyingly high-profile place in which to publish incorrect URLs, and we could do without a gazillion more "help pls wear cna i find this page IT ARE NOT WORK AND V URGENT NOW kthxbye" emails than we already get). And yet it's a bad thing in other ways, not least because it gives the impression that any attempt to access web-based information at this illustrious institution will return a big fat "404: arse not found with both hands" error.

And then I check one obviously-incorrect URL, and discover that we've already put a redirect in from a slightly-differently-wrong version of the same wrong URL, because IT APPEARED INCORRECTLY LAST YEAR, and you'd think (you'd think you'd think you'd think) you'd cocking well make sure you GOT IT RIGHT after that, but no, but no, but no.

Help, pls. Wear cna i find willpower? IT ARE NOT WORK.