Posted by SpaceGirl on 10/02/07 10:44

On Oct 2, 10:45 am, Onideus Mad Hatter <use...@backwater-
productions.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:14:57 +0100, SpaceGirl
>
> <nothespacegirls...@subhuman.net> wrote:
> >> 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?
>
> Well, yeah, actually. What better source is there for beginner and
> advanced web design tutorials/guides?

I agree, I'm not having a dig at their site at all - I still use it as
quick ref. If your mom is designing web sites then I'd expect her to
have visited that site at some point. I suspect most moms with
internet connections are NOT designing web pages however, so will
never visit it.

> >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?
>
> Did you just miss the fuckin link, Spacey? I mean, okay, you've been
> taking some serious dumbfuck pills here lately, but really, take
> fuckin notes or something:http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.w3schools.com

Doesn't make it any more relevant.
practically nobody LOL.
>
> You really are a dumbfuck.
>
> "Alexa's data come from a large sample of several million Alexa
> Toolbar users; however, this is not large enough to accurately
> determine the rankings of sites with fewer than roughly 1,000 total
> monthly visitors. Generally, Traffic Rankings of 100,000+ should be
> regarded as not reliable because the amount of data we receive is not
> statistically significant. Conversely, the more traffic a site
> receives (the closer it gets to the number 1 position), the more
> reliable its Traffic Ranking becomes."
>
> Yeah, several million is "practically nobody".

Yep. 1 million = 0.3% of all web users. Even if it were 100 million
that would only be 33% of all users, still not a realistic sample.

> Further, in your idiocy you didn't even realize you just contradicted
> yer own argument. First you tried to claim that the W3School's stats
> would be inaccurate because they represent only TECHNICAL USERS and
> not idle dumbfucks like your mom (apparently), however Alexia's
> toolbar is marketed primarily to those idle dumbfuck users and NOT to
> highly technical users, most of which consider the toolbar to be a
> spamish accessory.

This is a good point, but still doesn't validate the stats. Yes
clearly there are a large number of users with Alexa + visiting this
particular site; however both samples are so small you can't really
expand that to represent all users.
> >> relevant site. Oh hey, why don't we check YOUR Alexia rating!
>
> >>http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.bitesizedja...
> >> 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.
>
> Pffft, don't make excuses. I don't even advertise Backwater, I act
> like a fuckin bastard to pretty much everyone under the sun, half the
> gawd damn Internet has every reason to hate my fuckin guts and I
> *STILL* manage to bounce around in the 200 to 600 thousand range.

I don't advertise any of my sites, anywhere, apart from the handful of
posts I make in here. You post a lot more than me. Plus, sites like
BSJ are less than 6 months old, and completely empty at the moment.
Hardly a surprise :)

> >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 problem here Spacey is that you're trying to compare apples to
> circuit boards. Now not everybody in the world likes apples and there
> are certainly going to be exclusive markets (like health nuts),
> however with circuit boards...no. With that, there is no "market" as
> far as consumers are concerned, it's a construct, it's hardware that
> runs market specific products, but the circuit board in and of itself
> doesn't have a particular market since it can be utilized in every
> market. It's the same with javascript. My Care Bear site may be
> targeted towards tweenage muppet fucks, nostalgic 20 somethings and
> ankle biters, but that doesn't mean javascript is ONLY relevant to
> those markets since javascript can be utilized for ANY site that can
> cater to ANY market. Because of that fact nearly every market that
> exists has more than a handful of sites that either rely or are nearly
> wholly dependent upon javascript in order to function. That in turn
> forces EVERY SINGLE LAST NICHE MARKET to enable javascript.
>
> It is essentially the YouTube Principal. If you have a popular site,
> or a site with exclusive content, etc, that is wholly dependant upon a
> specific technology (in YouTube's case it's Flash), it will
> automatically force a significant portion of the net.populous to
> download and enable that technology. The more sites that exist the
> greater the chance of that forced upgrading being exerted upon
> Internet users, so the more people who go online and the more sites
> that are created the more existing technologies like Flash and
> javascript become solidified as de facto standards of browsing,
> essential requirements. And that fact is VERY clearly seen on the
> ever increasing W3School's stats.

Actually a really good argument! I don't disagree.

> ...speaking of which, you stupid fuckin retards never did post any
> counter stats that contradict the data on the W3School's site...not
> that I would expect so much from you droolers. Fact is, you formulate
> NONpinions and then run the fuck at the mouth with NOTHING to back
> yourself up, where as whenever *I* say something it is *ALWAYS* based
> upon some relevant, irrefutable, hard facts:http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.w3schools.com

While I don't trust W3CSchools stats at all, I do think it is
representative of a general trend (but this is based on dealing with
1000s of users, not just stats). I don't trust anything Alexa says at
all, period. I think that most people have JS enabled, and Flash, and
in actual fact it's niche markets that have it turned off, which is
kind of upsidedown (in a good way, at least for people like me).

I would just argue - be careful what you project for a stats from
market specific sites or other commercial services.

> And yet the "kinds of people" who download and use the Alexia toolbar
> ARE "average users"...so, dum de dum, looks like you just contradicted

Yep they are.

> yer own idiotic argument. You uh...you didn't even realize it, did
> you? LOL...how pathetic. I swear, the more you talk the more you
> disappoint me.

:D aww he's so sweet hehe

It is interesting though - I'd love to see where Alexa really get
their stats from, as it is a conflict. Common sense tells you that
very few people outside of designers and the HTML-curious are likely
visit this site, or any other tech site.

> >> 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.
>
> It won't "disappear", however much of the form, design and some of the
> content/functionality won't be available to you. And that's the way
> most sites are, including many of Google's sites. You can "see" them
> without javascript, but you can't utilize those sites to their full
> potential without the technology. It's sort of like a car with no
> wheels can run...but it can't go anywhere.

Finally! You conceded something :)

> >> (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
>
> ...you dumbfuck. *shakes head*
>
> Look here kiddo, it's time for a history lesson. One day, back ought
> in '95 there was a bloaty, pasty fat man by the name of Brendan Eich,
> who developed a language called Mocha...which he then later called
> LiveScript, which he then later called JavaScript.

I know the history. Note the capitalisation of both LiveScript and
JavaScript.

> Now, here's the trick, Stupid. Later, along came Microsoft who
> developed THEIR OWN RENDITION of the language and they called it
> JScript.

Yep. What does that have to do with it being called JavaScript rather
than javascript?

> So that created conflicts because then there were essentially two
> different languages, JavaScript and JScript.

Yep and there still are.

> In order to "fix" the situation, a THIRD PARTY, ECMA came along and
> introduced a "standard" form of the language called ECMAscript.
>
> Both JavaScript and JScript aim to be compatible with the ECMAscript
> "standard", however both of them ARE NOT exactly ECMAscript.

"Based on". As usual these standards aren't worth that much; they're
just guidelines after all.

> So you see, Doorknob, people needed a way of describing all these
> different forms as one, hence "javascript" (do note the lack of
> capitals) was formulated BY THE DEVELOPERS as a means of talking about
> and including ALL FORMS (JavaScript, JScript, ECMAscript, etc).

Proove it. You call it that, nobody else is. I supplied you with 10
current examples. Match it, or admit you're wrong.

> The problem is that at some point the whole "AJAX" fuckwit bandwagon
> came along and you along with all the other n00b level college flunkie
> retards started capitalizing the fuckin word out of stupidity, not
> comprehending the history behind the word and why it SHOULDN'T be
> capitalized (because if you do you're only referring to one
> sub-language).

It's not relevant, I cited all the official examples and you still
think you're right.

> Essentially every time you say JavaScript instead of javascript you're
> referring ONLY to the NETSCAPE implementation of the language.

Nice argument, but not the case. I'll wait for you to post some
examples.

> You don't get to utilize all of the potential functionality that those
> sites/domains have to offer without javascript, you idiot fuck.
> Again, a car without wheels will run, but you sure the fuck ain't
> gonna be ...

I know. You were the one who said 90% of sites would disappear, not
me. A lot of sites would BREAK. Nothing would disappear.

> >> Bitch slapping you the fuck across yer face since birth. *nods*
> >Only in your wet dreams :)
>
> Interesting how you edited/read that to infer that *I* was the one
> bitch slapping you and not the reality metaphor.

LOL okay.

[Back to original message]