w3schools meta

Jan 17, 2015 14:22

I agree with that sentiment and will probably end up posting a meta about why this meta was closed. MetaMetaMeta..... — RubberDuck 2 mins ago

Jeroen Vannevel

I was about to say

"Don't pay attention, they're Dutch"

Simon André Forsberg

@RubberDuck Do you see "Code Review" mentioned anywhere in the meta question?

RubberDuck

@SimonAndréForsberg OP was questioning comments left on Code Review answers and wanted to know why someone would leave such comments.

Simon André Forsberg

The meta question seems to be about "is W3Schools a good or bad site?", not directly related to posting answers or comments on Code Review.

@RubberDuck the best way to find that out is to reply to the answer/comment and ask.

RubberDuck

> "Meta invites the community to discuss, debate and propose changes to the way the community itself behaves"

Agreed, but that doesn't make the question off topic. Per that quote ^

If that question was off topic, so was the one discussing the use of var in C#.

rolfl

Jan 17, 2015 14:25

Letr's be clear on this, though. Discussing whether or not W3Schools is a 'good site' is not something that should happen here on Code Review or the meta site. I will happily close (and delete) questions that go in that direction. — rolfl ♦ 12 secs ago

Simon André Forsberg

With the way the comments on the question progressed, it was not about Code Review, it was about W3Schools.

Captain Obvious

0

Q: Memory searcher function test

Part of the project I started just now.. It is a function that returns the offset address of a first occurrence of a string match into a given range of memory blocks. #include <stdio.h> #include <string.h> #include <stdlib.h> typedef struct { unsigned long offset; unsigned long terminal...

1

Q: Query results with many to many and some parameters using Entity Framework in a more efficiënt way

I've created a working query in Entity Framework and I'm curious if there's a better way to do this. Since there's a lot of field on my models, I will only publish the relevant ones here. My Models are like this: public class Category { public int Id { get; set; } private ICollection<P...

c# .net linq entity-framework

RubberDuck

I disagree with that. It's pertinent to whether or not w3schools is a good reference.

Simon André Forsberg

@RubberDuck I unfortunately did not pay much attention to that one.

RubberDuck

10 mins ago, by rolfl

The answer to his question is: When supporting a statement by providing a link, the link should be as authoritative as possible. W3Schools is not a reference site, it is a beginner's tutorial site. Links to W3Schools are not a reference source. This is completely independent of whether W3Schools is a good learning site or not.

Regardless, discussing the behavior of people on Code Review is on topic for meta, no?

Simon André Forsberg

Jan 17, 2015 14:27

@RubberDuck that wasn't what was discussed though.

RubberDuck

But it was. I explained why someone would leave those comments.

Idk. We'll agree to disagree?

Simon André Forsberg

This comment especially IMO seemed like the question turned in the wrong direction:

Okay, I couldn't now know that. "The site has drastically changed" doesn't tell me in what matter. But actually, I still refuse to accept this as justification. How many errors are there in the Wikipedia, SO and other SE sites, which all are result #1 quite often, too? I know that in many cases the #1 result is bad, see lyrics or names. If you search for lyrics or names, you get results of sites having no other content than "Sorry, we don't have anything about searchterm". But W3Schools has actually useful content... — LWChris 30 mins ago

RubberDuck

Yeah. I didn't like that comment either.

rolfl

Additionally, your question is: "What's wrong with W3Schools?" when in reality, the question should have been: "What's wrong with linking to W3Schools?". The difference is significant. — rolfl ♦ 28 secs ago

Simon André Forsberg

^^ exactly

RubberDuck

Jan 17, 2015 14:29

I'll buy that.

Here's the var question for reference though.

8

Q: Overuse of var-keyword

I see a lot of C#-questions recently that make use of the var keyword. For those not familiar with C#/var (I don't know if other languages have similar features): You declare something var and the compiler (and IDE usually already as well) guesses the type you want and watches over that, so the...

discussion

rolfl

The first question is off-topic on CR, the second is potentially on-topic for meta.

RubberDuck

I would appreciate your thoughts the meta-on topicness of that @rolfl.

rolfl

15 mins ago, by rolfl

The answer to his question is: When supporting a statement by providing a link, the link should be as authoritative as possible. W3Schools is not a reference site, it is a beginner's tutorial site. Links to W3Schools are not a reference source. This is completely independent of whether W3Schools is a good learning site or not.

I would answer the same for anyone making a link in any language to a tutorial site when they are trying to support something that should come from the reference, specification, or documentation.

@Rubberduck, which reference is better for SQL-Server select syntax, this or this?

RubberDuck

I'm not debating that @rolfl. I'm solely concerned with why it was an off-topic meta. You already know my answer to that question.

> At this point in history it is probably safe to link to and learn from w3schools, but the official documentation should always be the canonical reference.

rolfl

You have changed the question.... I considered changing the question then rejected that.

RubberDuck

Jan 17, 2015 14:36

My edit, or our discussion?

rolfl

edit

You added the 'linking to'

RubberDuck

Mind if I ask why? You said your self that the question should be "What's wrong with linking to?"

All I'm trying to understand is why discussing the behavior of our users is off topic on meta.

rolfl

The two issues are orthogonal..... the behaviour, and the edit.

Jamal

I agree that adding "linking to" can make it sound more on-topic. Though, it appears that you've forgotten to revise the title as well.

rolfl

I decided not to edit the question for two reasons - 1, it seems clear that the question is asking about why people are disparaging about the site, not why linking to it is bad.

you have fundamentally changed that question.

the 2nd reason I did not edit it is because the answers focus on answering the question about w3Schools quality, rather than the linking.,

You have essentially invalidated the answers.

and now the question is not what the OP wanted to know/rant about

RubberDuck

Jan 17, 2015 14:41

OP is asking about comments people left telling people not to link to w3schools. I don't feel like I've invalidated anything, but feel free to roll back my edits.

rolfl

To be clear, if it is useful in an answer to provide a good example of how something can be done, and w3Schools has one already, then linking to it is just fine by me, but, if the intention is to say 'this is the documentation/specification/reference site', then a w3schools link is not OK.

RubberDuck

(For the record, not upset at all. I know that can be hard to "come through" the interwebs)

So, may I ask you to take a look at the var question and evalutate its on-topicness for me? I'm curious of your thoughts on that one.

rolfl

I have rolled back the edits that change the question from "what's wrong with w3schools?" to be "what's wrong with linking to w3schools?" Changing the nature of this question is not appropriate. If you want an answer to the issues with linking to another site, and which site should be linked to, then ask in a different question. — rolfl ♦ 9 secs ago

RubberDuck

Yeah. We'll agree to disagree there. It really didn't change the nature of the question in my opinion. It got to the heart of what was relevant here on CR's Meta.

I thought editing to make questions on topic was encouraged?

rolfl

Time for an analogy......

Jamal

Jan 17, 2015 14:50

...and a banana.

3

rolfl

it's the difference between...... "what's wrong with texting", and "what's wrong with texting while driving"

RubberDuck

Okay. Let's run with that.

rolfl

There's nothing inherently wrong with texting.

RubberDuck

Nope. Just while driving.

So, OP sees some people texting while driving. Shows up and asks "What's wrong with texting?"

rolfl

texting while driving is an activity that's not appropriate for the conditions at the time.

15 secs ago, by RubberDuck

So, OP sees some people texting while driving. Shows up and asks "What's wrong with texting?"

^^^ exactly

That question is off-topic here.

RubberDuck

Jan 17, 2015 14:53

But that's not what OP really meant to, or should have been, asking.

Hence, an edit.

rolfl

Agreed..... but, the answers mostly answered that.

Also, there's a difference between editing a question to bring it on topic, and asking a completely new question.

RubberDuck

But it's not a completely new question. It's the question that was really being asked.

Evidenced by the reference to the comments.

At least, that's how I see it and we may never agree on that point.

Jamal

> What kind of problem do people have with W3Schools, what's wrong with the site?

RubberDuck

But I definitely see where you're coming from.

rolfl

Twice, in that question, there was the direct question: What's wrong with W3Schools?

that's no accident.

and it's also not something to be discussed on CR.

RubberDuck

Jan 17, 2015 14:56

Which I really feel what was really meant was "Why are these users saying not to link to W3Schools?"

rolfl

I can understand why you thought that, because in part, that's what you answered.

RubberDuck

And that question is something to be discussed on CR's meta.

I mean, at least I feel like I understand why the question as posted was off topic.

rolfl

But, my interpretation is that it is clear the user is not interested in why linking is bad, he's interested in why people think W3Schools is bad.

It's a matter of interpretation, but, the actual words support my interpretation more than yours.

RubberDuck

So, bigger question. What's wrong with making the question on topic, as any new question asked would just re-iterate the answers on that question?

rolfl

and the suggested changes you made, change that question fundamentally, more than I think can be supported by a 'bringing it back on topic' comment.

It is no longer the question the OP wanted to ask.

I remember someone having a freak-out about a question asked on christianity.se that morphed beyond the OP intentions....

don't want that to happen here too.

RubberDuck

Jan 17, 2015 14:59

Neither of us can know that one way or the other, but....

@rolfl Okay. Fair enough. Point made.

rolfl

Note what I said in my comments, if you want to discuss the problems with linking to W3Schools (and other tutorial sites) instead of the reference material itself, then feel free to ask as a different question.

The 2nd Monitor

Participants