And for you ladies, we have caftans, muumuus... and our own exclusive A-frame in all colors and patterns. Yes, we have miles and miles of fabric. So take it from me, Thornton Melon... if you want to look thin, you hang out with fat people.
Posted on 10/28/2014 7:11:52 AM PDT by shove_it
I am plus sized and it is so nice to know that many here agree that the last group that it is fine to make fun of are the fat ones.
Walmart should have used plus-sized as they have for years. Somebody thought it was funny and I guess they were right.
Apparently I am a wuss because I do not like being called fat because I cannot wear a 10 or 12.
Please tell the ESTABLISHMENT to stick “politically correct” up their A$$.
And for you ladies, we have caftans, muumuus... and our own exclusive A-frame in all colors and patterns. Yes, we have miles and miles of fabric. So take it from me, Thornton Melon... if you want to look thin, you hang out with fat people.
It’s called a “language matching algorithm.”
No one consciously chose to have “fat girl” equal “plus size.” Some thesaurus somewhere said “plus size” equals “fat.”
Get over it. If the costume fits...
I am not a plus size so I don’t need to worry about it.
But I am a woman, and do know that almost all women are sensitive about their weight. (What guy doesn’t already know this?) So why be deliberately offensive?
Yes, the US does have an obesity problem— but it is not okay to be rude to paying customers.
Lack of civility is not a virtue— even amongst so-called conservatives.
Well said! You'd think that on a pro-capitalism website people would understand this basic concept!
It is more enjoyable to make fun. Unfortunately.
You missed the point. No one was deliberate. Walmart has a search engine for products on its site. They have a huge thesaurus that identifies potential word matches so they can help find consumers the products they want.
So, deck = porch = outdoor living space.
They uploaded this database with matches and fat just happened to be equal to “plus sized.” And guess what? It is.
So it wasn’t deliberate.
"Fat Girl Costumes" was deliberately placed on the Walmart website by some coder. I'll go out on a limb and say it was unauthorized.
The Walmart website has a category called "Party & Occasions."
Within "Party & Occasions," there is a subcategory called "Halloween," and "Halloween" pages display a breadcrumb of "Party & Occasions > Halloween."
Within the subcategory of "Halloween" the website briefly displayed a subcategory of "Fat Girl Costumes."
The breadcrumb displayed on that selection page displayed "Party & Occasions > Halloween > Fat Girl Costumes."
The initial problem was a deliberate coding issue, not a language-matching algorithm problem (that's what Walmart has now).
I have *no idea* how you derived deliberate coding action from the article. Breadcrumbs can use synonyms from a thesaurus service. Just because something is on the screen, doesn’t mean it was “put there” deliberately - it’s active content.
Amazon does active content breadcrumbs. I bet Walmart does, too. The corrective action was probably just to remove the synonym, and thus removed the synonymous subcategory.
Second the screenshot has been Photoshopped, Fireworksed, CorelDRAWed, or [insert name of your favorite graphics software here'd], or is hosted on a domain other than walmart.com, or (theoretically) was deliberately miscoded.
No URL is shown in the screenshot and the page is missing more than a few elements that appear on real Walmart web pages within the area shown in the 'screenshot.'
However, just as a matter of information, the breadcrumbs could have been produced as the result of deliberate coding action on a different occasion, because Walmart uses static, not active, breadcrumbs. Allow me to 'splain.
I've played around with synonyms in several different Walmart categories and subcategories and I firmly do not believe Walmart uses an active content 'synonym/thesaurus service' to produce the text for its breadcrumbs. Nope. Walmart uses static text for its breadcrumbs.
Use Walmart's Spider-Girl Classic Adult Halloween Costume as an example. Source coding for the breadcrumbs starts at line 152 of the HTML source for the page. Walmart uses http://www.data-vocabulary.org/Breadcrumb/, but only to set the title, url, and child properties of breadcrumbs in accordance with the Google's Webmaster Tools .doc.
The static text for breadcrumbs is created by static HTML code for the page. The breadcrumbs text is not found on something that's linked or embedded, nor is it called or generated. It's static. In the source code.
Line 159 of the source code:
. . . "catPath":"Party & Occasions/Halloween /Adult Halloween Costumes/Women's Halloween Costumes" . . .
Line 196 of the source code:
. . . "categoryPathName":"Party & Occasions/Halloween /Adult Halloween Costumes/Women's Halloween Costumes" . . .
(I cannot access all of the .css in the page source code. Neither 'catPath' nor 'categoryPathName' appear in the three stylesheets that I can access.)
I've looked at the source code for eight Halloween costume categories or products, and five random non-Halloween products. Same result. Static text for breadcrumbs smack-dab in the HTML source code for each page.
However, I confirmed again that I am an idiot to rely on that screenshot and that the media are dupes who, like me in this case, didn't take the time to look at a Walmart web page.
The 'screenshot' is missing detail that would show within the area claimed to be 'screenshot,' such as the ability to refine the search. There are more than four plus-sized women's costumes. Eighty-two, currently, including those not in stock and all of those shown in the 'screenshot.' I can't recreate the grouping shown in the 'screenshot' with any method of sorting, unless the user refined the search with 'store availability,' In that case, however, the screenshot should show the 'price' and 'store availabilty' drop-downs. It doesn't.
Also, unless there's been a major reworking of Walmart's navigation, you never get to a specific navigation level subcategory of costumes (such as Women's Halloween Costumes, Men's Halloween Costumes, Baby Costumes, Toddler Costumes, etc.) without first going through one or more primary levels of navigation such as "Adult Halloween Costumes," or "All Children's Halloween Costumes."
Those more primary levels of navigation always show in the breadcrumbs.
The 'screenshot' does not show the required pre-levels of navigation such as "All Costumes," or "Adult Halloween Costumes."
Unless Walmart has added one or two additional mandatory levels of navigation to its displayed breadcrumbs for all Halloween costumes since the screenshot, the screenshot's been altered. Since the breadcrumbs appear to be static and specific to a web page's source code, you'd need to create a program to make code revisions to all Halloween costumes for sale in the domain, wouldn't you? Nobody is going to change the static code on a page-by-page basis in all of Walmart's Halloween costume page source HTML.
I can't replicate reaching a specific subcategory such as 'Women's Costumes' without first showing a breadcrumb for one or more navigation pre-tiers such as "All Costumes" or "Adult Halloween Costumes."
I believe the screenshot is a 'Shop job, but I have a final thought. Somebody correct me if I'm gobsmackingly naive.
If the breadcrumb title is a static title appearing on a single page as a result of the static HTML source for that specific page, wouldn't it be possible to replicate the 'gaffe' by changing only one or two lines of source code for the single page shown, ala Spider Girl? Of course that requires an explanation for Walmart's internal search engine pulling up the new 'category,' if in fact that occured.
Finally, I can download all of the graphics in the 'screenshop' from walmart.com, along with a .css file that covers typography, floats, divs, etc., and along with starter HTML source code. No scripts are necessary to produce that 'screenshot.' I could create the screenshot on any of my domains, if I were so inclined and wanted to waste time. 'Shopping
So . . . nope. I still believe the screenshot's either 'Shopping's a lot easier than twerking the source code and slightly tweaking CSS to create the 'screenshot' on another domain, but anyone with web developer skills could do it.
So I'm 99.999% certain the screenshot was Photoshopped or Fireworksed. The breadcrumbs could have been created by recoding the source code for one page, but that wouldn't explain the web page elements missing from the screenshot. The screenshot can be produced at another domain, but why waste time doing that when you can 'Shop?
I believe the letters O, C, and D are calling me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.