|
|
Posted by Onideus Mad Hatter on 10/02/07 09:47
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 16:05:48 -0400, Drew
<whoisthatmaskedman@hotmail.com> wrote:
>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.
I wonder if my bitch slapping reply will be as fun for you, Drippy.
It's nice to see you slurping for Hatter Points though, you must be
feeling pretty desperate for my attention.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog
Hatter Quotes
-------------
"You're only one of the best if you're striving to become one of the
best."
"I didn't make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you
with it."
"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."
"Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."
"Usenet Filters - Learn to shut yourself the fuck up!"
"Drugs killed Jesus you know...oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my
bad."
"There are clingy things in the grass...burrs 'n such...mmmm..."
"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."
"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"
"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."
"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."
"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."
"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."
"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
to their merry little mess."
"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
images burned into their tiny little minds'."
"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."
"Those who record history are those who control history."
"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage,
endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror...but you
don't get sent to me...I come for you."
"Ideally in a fight I'd want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton
tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."
"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a
function?"
"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid.
Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast
indicates an increase in Webtv users."
"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|