Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm all for bringing back vote counts, I do sorely miss them... but I have to ask, in this particular case, how would mankind be served if we knew that 127 more people agree with cstuder? Maybe I'm missing something, this is an honest question.
If people saw [ 528 ] as the vote count for that comment, they'd be less likely to upvote it themselves.
Faster than jQuery(document).ready() - Wait Until Exists
21–30 of 48 posts
Re: Faster than jQuery(document).ready() - Wait Until Exists
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
this is why we need vote counts to be displayed again.
I'm all for bringing back vote counts, I do sorely miss them... but I have to ask, in this particular case, how would mankind be served if we knew that 127 more people agree with cstuder? Maybe I'm missing something, this is an honest question.
1. Those who aren't familiar with the topic. With a single-digit score, there's potentially not much value there. With a three-digit score, hey, maybe people shouldn't use large images in the background. Then this person can either follow it or look up or ask why this is. It's marking significance to an otherwise unknown topic.
2. Similarly, if the author of the site sees this, they can see just how many people agree with this. This is important because again, high score means people agree with it. This person may still not take action, but should at least consider it if it's a high enough score. Maybe even chime in and respond with a rationale.
3. The rest of the community. This will either acknowledge your own views or raise a red flag if the score is high enough. Did you miss something? Are enough people just plain wrong according to what you believe to be true? Should you post a counter-point or add/ask for clarification?
Re: Faster than jQuery(document).ready() - Wait Until Exists
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm all for bringing back vote counts, I do sorely miss them... but I have to ask, in this particular case, how would mankind be served if we knew that 127 more people agree with cstuder? Maybe I'm missing something, this is an honest question.
the problem is that without a vote count, how do you know if 2 people voted for it (and thus really isn't a big deal), or 127 (and thus, the OP should really fix his stupid site). The only alternative are "me too" posts, which are hideous (and which is basically what my reply was). In short, as-is, the OP really has no way of knowing just how aggravating his site is.
I'll concede that 127 visible upvotes are much preferable to 127 "me too" replies, though!
Re: Faster than jQuery(document).ready() - Wait Until Exists
#24Re: Faster than jQuery(document).ready() - Wait Until Exists
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think he meant faster as in executed before, rather than in executed faster.
Still doesn't answer the question: how much earlier is it executed? I would like to know.
You still can use it for setting late binding event handlers though.
Re: Faster than jQuery(document).ready() - Wait Until Exists
#26Re: Faster than jQuery(document).ready() - Wait Until Exists
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm all for bringing back vote counts, I do sorely miss them... but I have to ask, in this particular case, how would mankind be served if we knew that 127 more people agree with cstuder? Maybe I'm missing something, this is an honest question.
Helps three groups of people. 1. Those who aren't familiar with the topic. With a single-digit score, there's potentially not much value there. With a three-digit score, hey, maybe people shouldn't use large images in the background. Then this person can either follow it or look up or ask why this is. It's marking significance to an otherwise unknown topic. 2. Similarly, if the author of the site sees this, they can…
I guess what I didn't take into account in my previous comment is that the guy responsible for the animated GIF might drop by HN and might take the GGP's comment more seriously if he sees a large number of votes attached to it. This makes sense and is another good reason to get vote counts back here, especially if it discourages others from posting me-too comments.
Re: Faster than jQuery(document).ready() - Wait Until Exists
#28I'd also like to see some benchmarks to back up the assertion that this is faster. The DOM modification events are generally accepted as slow and it seems like this is leaving a handler attached for the duration of the page's existence.
Re: Faster than jQuery(document).ready() - Wait Until Exists
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm all for bringing back vote counts, I do sorely miss them... but I have to ask, in this particular case, how would mankind be served if we knew that 127 more people agree with cstuder? Maybe I'm missing something, this is an honest question.
If people saw [ 528 ] as the vote count for that comment, they'd be less likely to upvote it themselves.
If you see a comment or article you approve of, you should upvote it, regardless of how popular (or not) it is among other people. If there are 529 people who approve of a certain comment, then it comes by those 529 upvotes honestly.
Re: Faster than jQuery(document).ready() - Wait Until Exists
#30Does someone have a really good example of where this would be useful? The description is basically, "When this element exists, do something" but what is the something you'd do? If it's styling, that should be done in CSS. If it's event handlers, that can be done with `.live()` or `.delegate()`. I'd also like to see some benchmarks to back up the assertion that this is faster. The DOM modification events are generall…