I just wish they had better SEO than say W3Schools
i just add mdn at the end of my query.
The future of MDN: a focus on web docs
11–20 of 113 posts
Re: The future of MDN: a focus on web docs
#12Yeah for this statement, "...often Web developers are looking for quick examples...", I don't even care if the examples are higher up on the page or not...I just would like more and more examples. Sometimes the examples are too few or don't fully exemplify options of particular functions, etc. Nevertheless, I'm absolutely grateful to all the folks who put in so much work into MDN. If you are one of those people, know that I thank YOU!
Re: The future of MDN: a focus on web docs
#13I just wish they had better SEO than say W3Schools
Same for RFCs. Let's search for "rfc 1855". The first item is indeed the original plain text source, unfortunately without links or anything: - https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt But the second hit is a third-party source, that doesn't provide much over the plain text version. It doesn't even contain the RFC contents directly. I can't imagine anyone seriously linked to that page, let alone that so many are doing it…
Same search on duckduckgo, first few results are (in order):
- https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855 (html version)
- ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt (text version)
- rfc1855.net (another html version which is more readable than the ietf's)
- datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc1855/ (information about the history of the rfc)
- https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1855 (useless)
This is one of the clearest examples yet of why I prefer duckduckgo these days. Even if it might partially be just because less SEO is targeted at them.
Re: The future of MDN: a focus on web docs
#14I just wish they had better SEO than say W3Schools
Am I the only one who prefers W3Schools over MDN? It's much less cluttered and immediately gives me the example usage I'm looking for.
Re: The future of MDN: a focus on web docs
#15I just wish they had better SEO than say W3Schools
[deleted]
Re: The future of MDN: a focus on web docs
#16Re: The future of MDN: a focus on web docs
#17I just wish they had better SEO than say W3Schools
Am I the only one who prefers W3Schools over MDN? It's much less cluttered and immediately gives me the example usage I'm looking for.
The problem has been that historically W3Schools has been inaccurate. MDN set out to fix that and be the best source. I don't know why W3Schools has so much SEO juice.
Re: The future of MDN: a focus on web docs
#18I just wish they had better SEO than say W3Schools
Same for RFCs. Let's search for "rfc 1855". The first item is indeed the original plain text source, unfortunately without links or anything: - https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt But the second hit is a third-party source, that doesn't provide much over the plain text version. It doesn't even contain the RFC contents directly. I can't imagine anyone seriously linked to that page, let alone that so many are doing it…
rfc-editor.org is an IETF-run service and is the official permanent home for RFCs now. See https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7990
Re: The future of MDN: a focus on web docs
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I the only one who prefers W3Schools over MDN? It's much less cluttered and immediately gives me the example usage I'm looking for.
The problem has been that historically W3Schools has been inaccurate. MDN set out to fix that and be the best source. I don't know why W3Schools has so much SEO juice.
Historically maybe but I don't think that's true nowadays.
Re: The future of MDN: a focus on web docs
#20There is [edit: was] also a community-driven alternative to MDN: https://webplatform.github.io/docs/