4 ms·

"I don't like something so no one should use it!" What kind of logic is that? I actually prefer going to w3schools because as a quick reference I find what I'm

"I don't like something so no one should use it!" What kind of logic is that? I actually prefer going to w3schools because as a quick reference I find what I'm looking for much faster than MDN. It has interactive examples right at the top so you can get a quick idea on what a function does. I am happy that both exist. Either you are completely out of touch or you're going to need to show some of the "low quality" examples from w3schools.

cies 5y ago
You do you. I find MDN so much better that I hope they soon push w3schools off their first-hit-throne. > Either you are completely out of touch or you're going to need to show some of the "low quality" examples from w3schools. Do you really need me for that? Here are "div" and "table" on both. https://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_div.asp https://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_div.asp https://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_table.asp https://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_table.asp https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/div https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/di... https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/table https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/ta... To me the difference is enormous (quality of writing, completeness, correct use of words, ads, noise on the page). But again: see for yourself. Now read back yous comment and see if your "What kind of logic is that?" and "I don't like something so no one should use it!" were reasonable sentences to throw at me.
- jka 5y ago
  Both seem fairly high quality to me, after reading the comments and viewing the pages from each site in comparison. I remember using w3schools to learn HTML probably about twenty years ago now, and the content hasn't changed much since then. MDN appears to have gone through two major transitions within the past year. Whether those qualities are good or bad depend on your perspective; whether one of them ranks above the other in terms of SEO depends on the algorithms used by the search engine in question.
- archerx 5y ago
  I still prefer the w3schools version, I feel like it is better because it is concise and get straight to the point without a ton of blah blah, if I want an encyclopedic type of reference (which is rare) I go to mdn, but most of the times I just need quick reference that gets to the point immediately. Also I forget the internet has ads, don't you have ublock origin installed? Yes, they were totally reasonable sentences to throw at you because you want something to fail because of your subjective opinion disregarding if anyone else might find that something useful, it seems a bit solipsistic. I'm not saying mdn should be blocked, I'm saying I'm happy both exists, do you see the difference?
  - marcosdumay 5y ago
    If you don't want an encyclopedic reference, you can read the first section on MDN and move on. It's about as long and to the point as the w3schools article, and has all the rest of the content if you want to dig further. I don't think it should be blocked, but its content is almost always low quality, so it doesn't deserve the search rating it has. Its prominence is a strong symptom that search engines do not work very well.
    - cies 5y ago
franga2000 5y ago
1. where did you see that logic? I can't see it in the comment 2. w3schools has surface-level tutorials that teach you the most basic use case of each feature. It's decent for teaching, hence the name. MDN on the other hand is a complete reference - it shows every possible way to use a certain feature in a standardised format. Not as beginner-friendly, but it's what professional web developers need. They are very different sites.
- Yaina 5y ago
  MDN also has a bunch of tutorials[1], even for for various frameworks. I think the major difference is that W3Schools neglects to explain important concepts like what semantic html is and just says: "div is a cool box". [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn/HTML/Introduction_to_HTML/Getting_started https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn/HTML/Introduc...
  - rainonmoon 5y ago
    W3Schools' detractors do their credibility no favours with these spurious examples when claiming low quality. Nowhere do they say anything as reductive as "div is a cool box". Here's what they say about divs: > The <div> tag defines a division or a section in an HTML document. > The <div> tag is used as a container for HTML elements - which is then styled with CSS or manipulated with JavaScript. > The <div> tag is easily styled by using the class or id attribute. That's a succinct, factual description of its definition and basic functions. What's wrong with that?
    - Yaina 5y ago
      When comparing the articles for <div> on MDN and W3Schools they look rather similar. Both show that a div can get styled by using class or id. But MDN is a lot more careful in their wording and gives important context. W3Schools writes: > The <div> tag defines a division or a section in an HTML document. From a semantic perspective this is not true or it's at least misleading. <div> does not define a section or division, that's what <section> or <article> is for. The MDN article in contrast calls a div a "generic container" and has a disclaimer that says. > The <div> element should be used only when no other semantic element (such as <article> or <nav>) is appropriate. And while W3Schools does not say "div is a cool box", they instead write "Any sort of content can be put inside the <div> tag!", which...yeah.
chrisweekly 5y ago
As someone who's done webdev for a living since 1998, I share the OP's distaste for w3schools -- they truly earned their notoriety as a low-quality, spammy, SEO-hacking parasite. It was so bad it inspired a large group of some of the biggest names in the field to push back with a site called "w3fools" that tried to set the record straight and steer the hapless masses away from w3schools. See eg https://web.archive.org/web/20110412103745/http://w3fools.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20110412103745/http://w3fools.co... Unfortunately, it seems w3schools has since managed to acquire the w3fools domain, and (facepalm, what the actual f**) have appropriated the original content to make it appear as if those famous anti-w3schools signatories have all changed their minds and now endorse w3schools (!) -- which might actually be libel? and is just another scandalous example of the shadiness at play. A leopard doesn't change its spots. w3schools sucks. Steer clear!
- robin_reala 5y ago
  Worth pinging a few of the original signatories on Twitter to get their take?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- albedoa 5y ago
  > Unfortunately, it seems w3schools has since managed to acquire the w3fools domain "Seems"? Do you know that it is true, or are you guessing?
  - colejohnson66 5y ago
    Probably guessing. The site is still alive, but has been changed to say that W3Schools has cleanup up their act. https://www.w3fools.com/ https://www.w3fools.com/

cies 5y ago

You do you. I find MDN so much better that I hope they soon push w3schools off their first-hit-throne. > Either you are completely out of touch or you're going to need to show some of the "low quality" examples from w3schools. Do you really need me for that? Here are "div" and "table" on both. https://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_div.asp https://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_div.asp https://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_table.asp https://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_table.asp https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/div https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/di... https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/table https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/ta... To me the difference is enormous (quality of writing, completeness, correct use of words, ads, noise on the page). But again: see for yourself. Now read back yous comment and see if your "What kind of logic is that?" and "I don't like something so no one should use it!" were reasonable sentences to throw at me.

jka 5y ago
Both seem fairly high quality to me, after reading the comments and viewing the pages from each site in comparison. I remember using w3schools to learn HTML probably about twenty years ago now, and the content hasn't changed much since then. MDN appears to have gone through two major transitions within the past year. Whether those qualities are good or bad depend on your perspective; whether one of them ranks above the other in terms of SEO depends on the algorithms used by the search engine in question.
archerx 5y ago
I still prefer the w3schools version, I feel like it is better because it is concise and get straight to the point without a ton of blah blah, if I want an encyclopedic type of reference (which is rare) I go to mdn, but most of the times I just need quick reference that gets to the point immediately. Also I forget the internet has ads, don't you have ublock origin installed? Yes, they were totally reasonable sentences to throw at you because you want something to fail because of your subjective opinion disregarding if anyone else might find that something useful, it seems a bit solipsistic. I'm not saying mdn should be blocked, I'm saying I'm happy both exists, do you see the difference?
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  If you don't want an encyclopedic reference, you can read the first section on MDN and move on. It's about as long and to the point as the w3schools article, and has all the rest of the content if you want to dig further. I don't think it should be blocked, but its content is almost always low quality, so it doesn't deserve the search rating it has. Its prominence is a strong symptom that search engines do not work very well.
  - cies 5y ago

franga2000 5y ago

1. where did you see that logic? I can't see it in the comment 2. w3schools has surface-level tutorials that teach you the most basic use case of each feature. It's decent for teaching, hence the name. MDN on the other hand is a complete reference - it shows every possible way to use a certain feature in a standardised format. Not as beginner-friendly, but it's what professional web developers need. They are very different sites.

Yaina 5y ago
MDN also has a bunch of tutorials[1], even for for various frameworks. I think the major difference is that W3Schools neglects to explain important concepts like what semantic html is and just says: "div is a cool box". [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn/HTML/Introduction_to_HTML/Getting_started https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn/HTML/Introduc...
- rainonmoon 5y ago
  W3Schools' detractors do their credibility no favours with these spurious examples when claiming low quality. Nowhere do they say anything as reductive as "div is a cool box". Here's what they say about divs: > The <div> tag defines a division or a section in an HTML document. > The <div> tag is used as a container for HTML elements - which is then styled with CSS or manipulated with JavaScript. > The <div> tag is easily styled by using the class or id attribute. That's a succinct, factual description of its definition and basic functions. What's wrong with that?
  - Yaina 5y ago
    When comparing the articles for <div> on MDN and W3Schools they look rather similar. Both show that a div can get styled by using class or id. But MDN is a lot more careful in their wording and gives important context. W3Schools writes: > The <div> tag defines a division or a section in an HTML document. From a semantic perspective this is not true or it's at least misleading. <div> does not define a section or division, that's what <section> or <article> is for. The MDN article in contrast calls a div a "generic container" and has a disclaimer that says. > The <div> element should be used only when no other semantic element (such as <article> or <nav>) is appropriate. And while W3Schools does not say "div is a cool box", they instead write "Any sort of content can be put inside the <div> tag!", which...yeah.

chrisweekly 5y ago

As someone who's done webdev for a living since 1998, I share the OP's distaste for w3schools -- they truly earned their notoriety as a low-quality, spammy, SEO-hacking parasite. It was so bad it inspired a large group of some of the biggest names in the field to push back with a site called "w3fools" that tried to set the record straight and steer the hapless masses away from w3schools. See eg https://web.archive.org/web/20110412103745/http://w3fools.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20110412103745/http://w3fools.co... Unfortunately, it seems w3schools has since managed to acquire the w3fools domain, and (facepalm, what the actual f**) have appropriated the original content to make it appear as if those famous anti-w3schools signatories have all changed their minds and now endorse w3schools (!) -- which might actually be libel? and is just another scandalous example of the shadiness at play. A leopard doesn't change its spots. w3schools sucks. Steer clear!

robin_reala 5y ago
Worth pinging a few of the original signatories on Twitter to get their take?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
albedoa 5y ago
> Unfortunately, it seems w3schools has since managed to acquire the w3fools domain "Seems"? Do you know that it is true, or are you guessing?
- colejohnson66 5y ago
  Probably guessing. The site is still alive, but has been changed to say that W3Schools has cleanup up their act. https://www.w3fools.com/ https://www.w3fools.com/