[OT Web 2.0] Do you think free ad's might help advance D?

[BCS]

Hello Nick,

> "BCS" <none at anon.com> wrote in message
> news:a6268ff14ef58ccd817421b8206 at news.digitalmars.com...
> 
>> Hello Nick,
>> 
>>> This is the part where I fly off the handle bitching about any site
>>> that incessantly nags non-JavaScript users,
>>> 
>> While you many have a good reasons to not using JavaScript, SO (as
>> opposed to 99% of the sites out there) is not a good example case to
>> support your reasons with.
>> 
> Turn off JS and visit SO. You'll see what I mean. There isn't a damn
> thing in SO that can't be easily done without JS, but certain parts of
> it are broken and there's that big red obnoxius always-present
> nag-banner. If you're making a website, and you start to see yourself
> typing in anything that amounts to "This site needs/wants..." then
> right there that's a red flag that you're being a fucking douchebag.
> 

Your not countering any point I tried to make. Let me be more explicit, you, 
Nick, maybe have good reasons to not allow scripts, but I don't think SO 
is a good example of why you don't. If every site did JS as well as SO, I 
suspect you wouldn't hate them in the first place and you would never have 
seen what it looks like with them turned off.

As I see it, you don't like JS etc. because it can and is abused in ways 
if you used JS etc. would cause you problems, so you don't use them (a legitimate 
choice). SO is painful to use without JS etc. (not under depute). SO is at 
fault; doesn't follow. Blame, JS etc., blame the people who abuse them, blame 
the people who designed them. But unless you can show how SO would cause 
YOU a problem using it the way it was designed to be used, I don't think 
you can get away with blaming SO for the problems.

OTOH, given that there are people out there that don't allow scripts, I will 
grant the point that a site that is hard or impossible to use without them 
is being stupid (or has decided that they are willing to loose some segment 
of the population and, BTW, I think SO has explicitly stated they are in 
the second camp)

> And besides that, there is one, and only one, *good* way to use JS in
> a site: Create the site completely non-JS. Then add in optional JS in
> the few places where it could actually improve responsiveness and
> usability.
> 

I'll grant the point with some (significant) restrictions: the sites core 
feature set should be usable with JS. For SO the core feature set IMHO (and 
I suspect not in yours) is being able to read questions and answers from 
pages Google feeds me. If that can be done without much pain, I think that's 
all you can expect to demand.

>>> and forces that OpenID crap,
>>> 
>> What's wrong with it? Really, I want to know.
>> 
> It's a phisher's wet dream - it makes ordinary logins look like Fort
> Knox. If a person *tried* to design a system that maximized
> phishability, I don't think anyone could have done a better job.

So you have no spesific objection to SO using OpenID but rather the exsitance 
of it in the first place? And even then you object because it makes it *easy* 
to screw the pooch big time rather than *forcing* you to risk doing so? (You 
can always open a different OpenID per site and you will be no worse off 
than without OpenID and might even be beter; at leat one of the providers 
has to be implemented competently...)

>>> and then start daydreaming about that StackOverflow-frontend
>>> site that I want to create but will probably never get around to,
>>> and
>>> even if I did they'd probably just send their lawyers after me
>> BTW, they have a API out and are running an app content (with real
>> prizes) so you might be able to get it done without any flack.
>> 
> Yea, I've come across that. Still have to get around to using it
> though :). Plus, I'm skeptical about how far they'd allow things to be
> taken (It's a business, so there's obviously some sort of
> revenue-generation, and I'm guessing it's ads.), and also, I'd be
> surprised if there's a way to get around that OpenID requirement
> without amounting to a competing service that merely merges SO's
> results into its own.
> 

Look at the blog, they have tried about 5 or 6 different ad system and haven't 
made enough money off any to worry about. As far as I can tell, they are 
running on VC and revenue from the jobs site.

>>> and
>>> [...] 99% of programmers out there would still just
>>> bitch about how I'm not [...] hop onto and fellatiate any and every
>>> idiotic
>>> tech fad that pops up like all the rest of them are...
>> Re: JS, I'm not sure about "idiotic" but I think calling it a "fad"
>> is like calling the Mississippi river a little bit of water.
>> 
> It's more like calling "sagging" a fad. That moronic "fashion" has
> been around since I started junior high (a loooong time ago, and I
> thought it was idiotic and ugly as hell even back then) and by some
> bizarre twist of fate it's still going (though I honestly can't
> imagine why - other than an epidemic of brain damage).

I wouldn't bet on either side of that one. :b

> I still
> consider it a "fad" though, because that's precisely the category it
> belongs in. Same with mandatory-JS, overuse of JS, misuse of JS, and
> JS-nagging. I know I'm breaking the literal definition, but as far as
> I'm concerned, a fad still deserves to be labeled "fad" even if there
> just happens to be enough morons out there to keep it going well
> beyond the lifetime it deserves.

What would you replace it with? Static HTML is good for showing static content 
and filling out (simple) forms: basic I/O. If that's all you are doing, by 
all means, make it work with JS. But what about the other 90% of the stuff 
out there? Anything that is more than minimally interactive. From where I 
sit, the choices are JS, a thick client, Flash (Yuck!!) or something else 
that will have 90% of the problems of at least one, it not more, of the above. 


-- 
... <IXOYE><