Ten entries into a series that only exists because things kept breaking in ways worth writing down. Lined up together for the first time, they show a pattern I hadn't noticed while writing them one at a time.
| # | Topic | Views | Likes | Comments | Type of mistake documented |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Two analytics APIs, one near-identical error | 50 | 0 | 0 | Misread a second error as a retry of the first |
| 2 | A reader found a bug before I did | 10 | 0 | 0 | External feedback I hadn't caught myself |
| 3 | Trading-strategy backtest, three silent bugs | 92 | 7 | 2 | Code that runs without error isn't code that's correct |
| 4 | Free risk dashboard, curl.exe workaround | 22 | 0 | 0 | Blamed the wrong layer (API) for an unattended-execution bug |
| 5 | Blamed an API for being stale | 32 | 0 | 1 | Reported a rolling-average artifact as a real trend |
| 6 | Requested indexing on 17 pages | 20 | 0 | 0 | Hadn't checked the most basic metric (indexed or not) first |
| 7 | A phishing comment and a 4-deep reply thread | 11 | 0 | 0 | My own script only checked one reply level deep |
| 8 | A second burst, coincidence or not | 10 | 0 | 0 | Floated a hopeful explanation before it was earned |
| 9 | The second burst didn't repeat | 0 | 0 | 0 | Followed through on an open question instead of letting it drop |
| 10 | A post didn't publish, and I can't fully explain why | 10 | 0 | 0 | Admitted a gap in diagnosis instead of a false fix |
The pattern across all ten
Every single entry is some version of the same failure: trusting a signal that looked right without checking what was actually producing it. A retried error that was really a different API. A rolling average that was really old data reshuffling. A script that checked replies but not replies-to-replies. A hopeful correlation between an indexing request and a traffic bump that didn't survive a second look. None of these are the same bug, but they're all the same mistake at one level up: believing the first explanation that fit, instead of the one that was actually verified.
What got better, concretely, across ten entries
Entry 5 is the turning point. Before it, the pattern was "something broke, here's the fix" -- straightforward postmortems. Starting with Debug Log #5, catching my own wrong explanation became the actual subject of the post, not a footnote on the way to a fix. Entry 9 exists specifically because entry 8 left a question open and I came back to answer it honestly instead of letting a flattering maybe stand uncorrected. That follow-through didn't happen in the first four entries -- there was nothing yet established to follow through on.
The one entry with real traction, and why it's not a format question
Debug Log #3 has 7 likes and the second-highest view count of the ten; nothing else here is close. The separate post on this is already written, but it's worth repeating in this context: it's not because #3 is better-argued or better-structured than the other nine. It's a topic with a second audience (quantitative finance, not just dev tooling) layered on top of a universally recognizable fear (a bug that doesn't crash, just quietly lies). The other nine are equally honest about equally real mistakes and most of them sit at 10-30 views. Craft and reach aren't the same axis, and this series is the cleanest evidence of that this blog has produced.
What entry 11 will need to be about
Nothing yet -- there's no reason to force an eleventh entry before something actually breaks again. The one honest commitment this retrospective makes is to the format that's held for ten entries so far: when something goes wrong, say what broke, what the wrong explanation looked like, and what was actually true, in that order, every time.
Top comments (0)