Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

W3Fools - A W3Schools Intervention

w3fools.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 58 posts

Re: W3Fools - A W3Schools Intervention

#12

Post by bentruyman »

radioactive21 wrote: post #11

huh I always use w3schools just to quickly see what a language is. I never took it as serious learning, that's for books and other sources. Attacking this site is like attacking a flyer for being too gimped on information.

So what you're saying is W3Schools should not be called out for posting misinformation?

Re: W3Fools - A W3Schools Intervention

#14

Post by alex_c »

While everyone else was busy bitching about ExpertsExchange, a few people got together, built a much better alternative, and now dominate Google search results.

As far as I can tell, these guys are dismissing that option because it's too much work.

Re: W3Fools - A W3Schools Intervention

#15

Post by rwaldron »

unreal37 wrote: post #10

First let me say, I am a web developer and use W3Schools as a reference. The web would be a worse place without it. They deserve their high Google ranking. So to attack something that is on the whole good, which may be 99% accurate but not 100% accurate, seems mean-spirited. Someone put a lot of time into this, and it's a shame they didn't do something productive instead of destructive.

I'm sorry to hear that you use W3Schools as a reference. http://gul.ly/qt

Re: W3Fools - A W3Schools Intervention

#16

Post by bbatsell »

unreal37 wrote: post #10

First let me say, I am a web developer and use W3Schools as a reference. The web would be a worse place without it. They deserve their high Google ranking. So to attack something that is on the whole good, which may be 99% accurate but not 100% accurate, seems mean-spirited. Someone put a lot of time into this, and it's a shame they didn't do something productive instead of destructive.

No. W3Schools is nowhere close to being 99% accurate. They refuse to correct blatant, longstanding errors. They refuse to make clear that they are not affiliated with the W3C. They repeatedly encourage very poor practices.

Moreover, the site in question, at its very top, suggests some very clear improvements to W3Schools, the most obvious and effective being to convert it into a wiki that will allow for self-correction and keeping the content up-to-date.

They also detail how there have been numerous attempts at building alternatives, but W3Schools retains too much unwarranted Google juice for those alternatives to be viable.

Re: W3Fools - A W3Schools Intervention

#17

Post by gf3 »

unreal37 wrote: post #10

First let me say, I am a web developer and use W3Schools as a reference. The web would be a worse place without it. They deserve their high Google ranking. So to attack something that is on the whole good, which may be 99% accurate but not 100% accurate, seems mean-spirited. Someone put a lot of time into this, and it's a shame they didn't do something productive instead of destructive.

Let me get this straight, you take pity on a business because people are outraged that the information they are providing is incorrect and they are deliberately tricking people into believing they are affiliated the W3C standards group? As well, it's not as if several better resources don't already exist. Too bad they don't have the advantage of such a deceptive name.

Re: W3Fools - A W3Schools Intervention

#18

Post by rwaldron »

alex_c wrote: post #14

While everyone else was busy bitching about ExpertsExchange, a few people got together, built a much better alternative, and now dominate Google search results. As far as I can tell, these guys are dismissing that option because it's too much work.

I'm dismissing it because the information is wrong. I also contribute to https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/ in support of the http://promotejs.com/ initiative.

So as far as I can tell, you're making comments that are wrong because you're not informed.

Re: W3Fools - A W3Schools Intervention

#19

Post by paulirish »

unreal37 wrote: post #10

First let me say, I am a web developer and use W3Schools as a reference. The web would be a worse place without it. They deserve their high Google ranking. So to attack something that is on the whole good, which may be 99% accurate but not 100% accurate, seems mean-spirited. Someone put a lot of time into this, and it's a shame they didn't do something productive instead of destructive.

> it's a shame they didn't do something productive instead of destructive.

The people behind this project are also developers and contributors to projects like jQuery, Dojo, Prototype, Chrome Developer Tools, jQuery UI, svgweb, HTML5 Boilerplate...

Re: W3Fools - A W3Schools Intervention

#20

Post by justinph »

I agree with the sentiment here, but not the way in which this goes about it. W3schools' name is a little scammy, but the info they house is useful.

The issues w3fools cite are pretty esoteric and/or very nit-picky. For instance:

  | www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_q.asp.
  | Browser Support. The  tag is supported in all major browsers, 
  | except Internet Explorer.
  This is blatantly false;  tags work just fine in IE8.
Uh, yeah, I guess it works just fine in IE8, but it doesn't work in IE6 or IE7, both of which are called 'Internet Explorer'. So saying it doesn't work in IE is technically correct. It just could be more specific.

W3schools obviously fills a niche that the W3C isn't filling. Reading a spec for HTML x.x is useful, but not viable when you're trying to get stuff done. W3Schools has gone through the work of reading the spec and turning it into a good reference. Good for them.

Post reply on HN