|
|
Posted by Drew on 10/01/07 20:05
SpaceGirl wrote:
> Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
>
>>> Who visits that site other than developers and designers? So, how are
>>> their stats even vaguely representative of average users?
>>
>> Oh Spacey, you have GOT to be completely the fuck out of yer head
>> today:
>> http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.w3schools.com
>
> So?
>
> You really think your mom would visit a W3C site? No. So her "vote"
> (hit" would not count. Just how many people are likely to go to these
> site who aren't involved in the industry in some way? What percentage of
> the 300,000,000 internet users there are actually go to this site?
>
>>
>> I mean, what the fuck girl? Check the shit out before you run at the
>> mouth, that's like rule number one in the tech biz.
>>
>>>>> 10% and rising.
>>>> Cite your source, Doofy.
>>
>>> Cite yours. The W3CSchools site is not relevant.
>>
>> Yeah, an Alexia ranking of SIX HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE...boy THAT'S not a
>
> You moron... Alexia is even worse! :D It only counts people who have the
> Alexia bar installed... which is practically nobody LOL.
>
>> relevant site. Oh hey, why don't we check YOUR Alexia rating!
>>
>> http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.bitesizedjapan.com
>>
>> Uh oh, you seem to be floating up there around FOUR MILLION. *nods*
>
> LOL Amazed it's even that good, seeing as it's not launched.
>
>>> I actually thing you are right, but it very much depends on your
>>> market.
>>
>> No, it REALLY the fuck doesn't.
>
> Of course it does. Get stats from universities you're likely to see very
> high numbers for Linux and other off-beat OS's and browsers. Different
> markets are more/less likely to use different platforms, so will always
> sway your stats.
>
> The kinds of people who visit W3C related sites are not average users.
>
>> Just in case reality hasn't penetrated yer thick fuckin skull yet,
>> here's that link, ONE MORE TIME:
>> http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.w3schools.com
>
> So?
>
> http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.bbc.co.uk
>
> There are around 300 million web users in the world. I doubt even 10% of
> them visit Alexa (I don't know, happy to be given a real figure), and I
> bet not even 1% of them visit w3schools.com. So, you are basing your
> stats on a tiny fraction of the world audience.
>
> However, if you were to measure the percentage of all the web designers
> in the world, it'd be much higher obviously, as they have an interest in
> the site - so they will visit it, their hits get counted.
>
>>> Cite your source. 90%? The worlds most popular sites (bbc.co.uk and
>>> google.com) both work without JS. While not all of their content is
>>> visible without JS, they don't "magically become beyond reach".
>>
>> Even MY site will "work" without javascript
>
> So your site is not one of the 90% that you said will disappear if there
> was no JS. Good for you.
>
>> (do note the lack of
>> capitals, amateur).
>
> Damn you got me. You better tell ECMA then, the people behind the
> standard (JS is an ECMA standard, like AS3):
>
> http://www.ecma.com
>
> And Microsoft:
>
> http://search.microsoft.com/results.aspx?mkt=en-US&form=MSHOME&setlang=en-US&q=javascript&x=0&y=0
>
>
> And Adobe:
>
> http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/search/index.cfm?loc=en_us&term=javascript
>
> And Mozilla:
>
> http://www.google.com/custom?cx=002443141534113389537%3Aysdmevkkknw&cof=AH%3Aleft%3BALC%3A%230000CC%3BBGC%3A%23FFFFFF%3BCX%3Amozilla%252Eorg%3BDIV%3A%23CC0000%3BFORID%3A0%3BGALT%3A%23008000%3BGFNT%3A%23000000%3BGIMP%3A%23000000%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emozilla%2Eorg%2Fimages%2Fmlogosm%2Egif%3BLC%3A%230000CC%3BLH%3A60%3BLP%3A1%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emozilla%2Eorg%3BT%3A%23000000%3BVLC%3A%23663399%3B&q=javascript&adkw=AELymgVm5MllHYR6NCnnwQHYwYGYyVsnmTKNj2jKRTH4V52hKti0-Y6T4jjapLfj8GIUyRa1WBY1klgjJWlz0b9ap5D7hZqGZpk8vqEzHGh0cH_QdpGQWWNN_q6bRuLZbP68ViRScN_TvqspsUxsaWC8tit_apFykJNQ2rKOAkGVY_04CTnFgrb09_Ro7eZ7lGhW33ADyBYe&hl=en&client=google-coop-np
>
>
> And W3Schools:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?sitesearch=www.w3schools.com&as_q=javascript
>
> Need I go on?
>
> http://searchwebservices.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid26_gci212418,00.html
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=javascript&fulltext=fulltext&sourceid=mozilla-search
>
>
> Seems the entire world has it wrong, but I'm sure you'll fix it for them.
>
>> In case you were too damn thick to notice there's
>> actually a whole gawd damn shit load of javascript on pretty much ALL
>> of Google's sites. Oh but I bet they just put that in there for the
>> fun of it, it doesn't really do anything, huh Spacey? *nods*
>
> Yes. There are plenty of sites that won't work without JS. But not the
> 90% you claim. Almost all the sites we do have JS all over them too.
> Some of them may not work without it :)
>
>> BTW, I don't think I properly bitch slapped you the last time you
>> tried to claim that javascript is capitalized, so please, try and
>> claim otherwise again and I'll go ahead and slap you up long side yer
>> head with what a fuckin n00b level miscomprehension that is. ^_^
>
> I just gave you a list of the people behind the language, who all refer
> to it as JavaScript. List me similar official sites or standards
> agencies that conflict with it please?
>
>>> How often do people in cyber cafe's visit that site? Or school kids,
>>> or office workers, or people on library computers, or folks at home
>>> doing online shopping etc etc. The site is not in the least bit
>>> representative of general users - it only represents people who are
>>> likely to visit their site (and the other technical sites they gather
>>> stats from).
>>
>> Here's reality!
>>
>> http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.w3schools.com
>
> http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.bbc.co.uk
>
> The worlds 2nd busy web site... (and works without JS)
>
> http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.google.com
>
> The worlds busiest site (and works without JS)
>
>> Bitch slapping you the fuck across yer face since birth. *nods*
>
> Only in your wet dreams :)
>
>>> "You cannot - as a web developer - rely only on statistics. Statistics
>>> can often be misleading.
>>
>> Uh, not this one, Kiddo. This is pretty much the fuck set in stone.
>
> They say that on their own site! You really do earn your handle :)
>
>>> Global averages may not always be relevant to your web site.
>>
>> And amazingly enough Alexia can actually track by country, isn't that
>> neat? ^_^
>
> Doesn't every stats package?
>
Now that was a fun read.
D
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|