MDN is a breath of fresh air in this regard. I expect it will knock w3schools of it's search result throne in the coming years. The end of a era of low quality, ad sponsored (4 ads, just counted) web technology reference.
https://w3schools.sinsixx.com/about/about_refsnes.asp.htm
If you want to communicate "stuck in the 90s", take this as your example! The photo of the "Web Masters", the favicon, the W3C-badges, the gif-badge webhosting ad, fixed-width, the CMS400 ad, the bordered boxes around everything. I had a blast.
If HN allowed embedded media, you can bet there would be a headpat animation in this comment.
Funny how that works, huh? Here's a pertinent rule that some^Wall here may^Wshould have seen before:
> Remember the human
I checked again but did not find a more modern site anywhere. Did you?
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.
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!
"Seems"? Do you know that it is true, or are you guessing?
> 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_table.asp
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/di...
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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/Introduc...
> 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?
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.
The point, as many others have offered in this thread but those set on hating W3Schools at all costs are determined to ignore, is that they provide a succinct explanation of web technologies for the relative layman. Its existence doesn't detract from MDN or any other resource, meanwhile it provides a demonstrable service. That seems like an odd crime to warrant strawmen attacks.
There's no practical incentive for Google to prioritize MDN over w3schools though. Google doesn't seem to rank sites on quality any more. I suspect they rank sites on "ad profitability" instead. Showing users websites that have adverts means users click on more adverts, which Google benefits from (by encouraging that user behavior even if they're not the ad publisher themselves).
w3schools has been online since 1998. MDN has been online since 2005. Why would Google change the search results in the coming years rather than at any time in the previous 17 years if they were aiming for quality?
There are also lists for blacklisting github and stackoverflow content clone sites.
I have my doubts the quality will remain
Despite the article literally covering this very issue. Just read the comments here.
And I'm willing to be they find a way to blame Mozilla for that ignorance.