3 ms·

yelp, pinterest, w3schools

by hairofadog 5y ago

nr2x 5y ago
Prior to mdn w3schools was a decent way to quickly find info on random HTML tags. Not sure why it gets so much hate.
- hairofadog 5y ago
  For me the issue with all of these sites is that their primary innovation seems to be dominating search results, and everything else is an afterthought. I actually don't know very much about w3schools other than that I have to continually reach over them to get what I'm after. I also seem to remember reading a lot of critiques like this one: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/280484 https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/280484
- true_religion 5y ago
  w3schools has its place but it’s usually the top result when I’m never looking for it. Once it was useful. But now I memorized all the information there so it’s not interesting.
- mananaysiempre 5y ago
  Prior to the popularity of MDN and campaigns like W3Fools (q.v.), the articles on W3Schools were very bad from a web standards perspective (<marquee> and VBScript levels of bad); from a programming perspective, their PHP articles (which largely date from that time) are still incredibly shoddy. Their unwillingness to relinquish the unwarranted authoritative tone or at least visibly disavow any connection to the W3C (who asked repeatedly), coupled with their domination of search results, at a time of a standards push (remember validator buttons?) and multiple high-quality documentation efforts (later folded into MDN; Opera in particular had a good course) just plain got on people’s nerves. They’re a valid reference, just a low-grade one, and using a low-grade reference is rarely a good tradeoff. They also used to be worse and never quite shook of their reputation.
handrous 5y ago
All the various gif sites that make it nearly impossible to get an actual gif. Why the fuck are they showing up on image results if the thing they serve to actual humans is a video? I thought tricking the Google Bot was supposed to be bad for SEO, but I guess not.

yelp, pinterest, w3schools

nr2x 5y ago

Prior to mdn w3schools was a decent way to quickly find info on random HTML tags. Not sure why it gets so much hate.

hairofadog 5y ago
For me the issue with all of these sites is that their primary innovation seems to be dominating search results, and everything else is an afterthought. I actually don't know very much about w3schools other than that I have to continually reach over them to get what I'm after. I also seem to remember reading a lot of critiques like this one: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/280484 https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/280484
true_religion 5y ago
w3schools has its place but it’s usually the top result when I’m never looking for it. Once it was useful. But now I memorized all the information there so it’s not interesting.
mananaysiempre 5y ago
Prior to the popularity of MDN and campaigns like W3Fools (q.v.), the articles on W3Schools were very bad from a web standards perspective (<marquee> and VBScript levels of bad); from a programming perspective, their PHP articles (which largely date from that time) are still incredibly shoddy. Their unwillingness to relinquish the unwarranted authoritative tone or at least visibly disavow any connection to the W3C (who asked repeatedly), coupled with their domination of search results, at a time of a standards push (remember validator buttons?) and multiple high-quality documentation efforts (later folded into MDN; Opera in particular had a good course) just plain got on people’s nerves. They’re a valid reference, just a low-grade one, and using a low-grade reference is rarely a good tradeoff. They also used to be worse and never quite shook of their reputation.

handrous 5y ago

All the various gif sites that make it nearly impossible to get an actual gif. Why the fuck are they showing up on image results if the thing they serve to actual humans is a video? I thought tricking the Google Bot was supposed to be bad for SEO, but I guess not.