Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

A Statistical Review of 1 Billion Web Pages

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Wed Jan 25, 2006 03:41 PM
from the demanding-a-recount dept.
The Internet
chrisd writes "As part of a recent examination of the most popular html authoring techniques, my colleague Ian Hickson parsed through a billion web pages from the Google repository to find out what are the most popular class names, elements, attributes, and related metadata. We decided that to publish this would be of significant utility to developers. It's also a fascinating look into how people create web pages. For instance one thing that surprised me was that the <title> is more popular than <br>. The graphs in the report require a browser with SVG and CSS support (like Firefox 1.5!). Enjoy!"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

A Statistical Review of 1 Billion Web Pages 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • and all I got was Britney Spears.

    Sheesh.

  • We've come a long way (Score:4, Funny)

    by suso (153703) * on Wednesday January 25 2006, @03:42PM (#14561604) Homepage Journal
    if the tag isn't on the top elements list.

  • is more popular than (Score:5, Funny)

    by InsideTheAsylum (836659) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @03:46PM (#14561636)
    well when people talk like this and dont bother using punctuation spacekeys or any of the skills that they have been taught in school its no wonder why webpages turn out like this not to mention those long runon sentences and also all that broken code that are the fist attempt at a webpage by a twelve year old kid who tried to steal someone elses layout and replaced the word with his own then you start to look at all of those dynamically generated webpages and the layouts and the style sheets and its no wonder why the good old br tag never get a work out.

  • Finally... (Score:5, Funny)

    by RandoX (828285) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @03:46PM (#14561637)
    An un-slashdottable server.

  • BR tag? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by p0 (740290) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @03:46PM (#14561638) Homepage
    With css power you really do not need to use br, maybe that is the reason for the small stats for the tag's use?

    • Re:BR tag? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by masklinn (823351) <slashdot...org@@@masklinn...net> on Wednesday January 25 2006, @03:53PM (#14561711)

      Small stat? are you joking?

      This is about the number of sites that use the tag, not the number of tags out in the wild, and <br> is used on more pages than <table>, there are as many pages with at least one <br> than pages with at least an <img> tag

      That's freaking huge, for a tag that should almost never be used.

        • The <br> element type is kept around for a few minority uses. Things like poetry, code listings, etc, where dividing something up into lines is necessary. These things are rare, which is why masklinn said "should almost never be used" and not "should never be used".

          What SHOULD never happen, I think, is for BR to be treated as a substitute for proper block-level delineation.

          Yes, and if you take into account the idea that most pages that use the <br> element type do so in precisely this

          • Because I don't know if the user wants to enter a paragraph. What the user entered is a line break (that's what hitting return does), thus br is the tag to use. If the user wants to enter in a paragraph, he can enter his own p tag or skip a line (which is the default p tag behavior anyway) and the p tag will be used.

            My site is XHTML, so the closing tag is required (not that that's stopping me).

    • Re:BR tag? is used in 7 out of 8 pages (Score:4, Informative)

      by TekGoNos (748138) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @06:14PM (#14562967) Journal
      The summary got it wrong,

      the study states that there are more pages using title, than pages using br. NOT that more title tags are used than br tags.

      Approximatly 98% of all pages have a title tag and approximatly 7 out of 8 pages have (at least one, probably more) br tags.

  • Not complete (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2006, @03:47PM (#14561653)
    It didn't have everything of course. Some elements were censored on behalf of the Chinese government.

  • what's the point of a 1 billion page sample? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ecklesweb (713901) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @03:49PM (#14561674)
    I have to ask, what's the purpose of a 1-BILLION page sample? That's the beautiful thing about statistics. If you can say something about the distribution of characteristics within a population, you don't have to survey the entire population to get meaningful results. Are the study authors proposing that no standard distribution can be applied to the entire universe of web pages? If that's the case, then do the statistics they apply to their sample of one billion really say anything predictive about the entire population?

    Aside from the cool factor of saying they sampled a billion pages, I don't see what extra benefits are gained from that extra effort.

    • Re:what's the point of a 1 billion page sample? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2006, @03:53PM (#14561708)
      You get a decrease of the variance of the mean.

    • Re:what's the point of a 1 billion page sample? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Durinthal (791855) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @03:55PM (#14561728)
      If you can have a larger sample, why not use it? It's more accurate that way.
      • Because with statistics, increasing the sample size does not result in a uniform increase in accuracy.

        If you start with a sample size of 1000 and add an additional 10000, the accuracy will increase dramatically. But if you start with 1,000,000,000, and increase it by another 1,000,000,000, the accuracy won't go up even by as much as 0.0001%

        Yes, I'm pulling the numbers out of the air, but the point is that there exists a sweet spot where the additional effort does not pay off.

    • A couple of people have pointed out that the larger the sample size, the less chance there is to attribute a meaningful difference to a situation that is actually a random fluctuation. That may be true, but I believe the point the parent is trying to make is that one of the key advantages of statistical modeling is that you can accurately model very large groups by studying very small samples of that group. If there was actually a need for this large a sample, then fine. Otherwise, the sample size is more s

  • I am still at the 22nd page, lot more to go (1 billion? OMG!).. see you all there

  • \. shows up in the Web Authoring Statistics (Score:5, Funny)

    by digitaldc (879047) * on Wednesday January 25 2006, @03:52PM (#14561701)
    The 'br' element [google.com]

    The br element is a simple one, yet used on so many pages that it is the 8th most-used element. It is used more than the p element.

    clear, style, class, soft, id, and \.

    Wow! I never knew you guys were that popular.
  • From TFA, the classes page:

    The rest of the top 20 classes are either presentational or otherwise meaningless (msonormal, for example, which is one of the classes that Microsoft Office uses in its "HTML" output).

  • Some of these results... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dracos (107777) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @03:55PM (#14561727)

    Prove that most people (and WYSIWYGs) don't know how to produce valid and accessible markup. The img alt attibute (an accessibility requirement) was found significantly less than width, height, and border.

    I'm working on a site now where the project owner is continually reducing usability and accessibilty of the entire site (Never mind that he secretly had a third party come up with an ugly design and ambushed the dev team with it).

    I keep telling everyone to deconstruct the adage "form follows function". It means function comes first. He doesn't care what anything *is* or how it *works*, only what it looks like. And, of course, that it's ugly.

  • Ad for anti-IE (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jamienk (62492) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @04:01PM (#14561779)
    It looks like a subtle push against IE: many mantions of the HTML 5 spec (which is being written by WHAT a workgroup that includes many browser companies but not MS); use of SVG; written by a major FF developer.

    Way to go Google! Pour on the pressure!

    • Re:Ad for anti-IE (Score:4, Informative)

      by Bogtha (906264) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @04:48PM (#14562251)

      written by a major FF developer

      I don't believe Ian Hickson has been involved with Firefox; if I remember correctly, he used to hack on Mozilla, but then started work at Opera before Firefox took off.

      I don't think it's a jab at Internet Explorer, it's just that he knows that the target audience is likely to have a decent browser, so he's used the features likely to be available.

  • Opera also supports SVG (Score:5, Informative)

    by TheJavaGuy (725547) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @04:15PM (#14561901) Homepage
    FYI, Opera also supports SVG. I'm surprised that Ian Hickson didn't have Opera also mentioned on that Google page, after all he worked at Opera until a few months ago.

  • Heh (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Z0mb1eman (629653) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @04:20PM (#14561944) Homepage
    This reminds me of the old joke that there only ever was one 'make' script, and everyone else modified it.

    I wonder how much of what they found is influenced by how people learned to write HTML - which in all likelihood was to copy code from existing pages... might explain parts of what they found, such as:

    Most people (roughly 98%) include head, html, title and body elements. This is somewhat ironic, since three of those four elements are optional in HTML

  • Font still popular (Score:3, Interesting)

    by superflippy (442879) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @04:22PM (#14561961) Homepage Journal
    In their list of the 19 most popular elements, the font tag was #16. This element was deprecated when, back in 2000 or so?

    Of course, there may have been a lot of old pages in the sample, or pages built with older versions of HTML. But I've seen first-hand people using font tags to make an error message red, for example, even in a page that's using XHTML 1.0. I try to explain to the developers I work with why they shouldn't use them. I remove the font tags when those same developers add them to pages I've laid out for them. Zombie-like, they refuse to die.

  • table with no (Score:5, Informative)

    by saigon_from_europe (741782) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @04:32PM (#14562070)
    From the article:
    If someone can explain why so many pages would use a
    <table>
    tag and then not put any cells in it, please let us know.
    I don't know if they counted dynamic pages, but I guess they did. In dynamic pages, an empty table is quite normal.

    Your code usually goes like this:
    <table>
    <% for each element in collection %>
    <tr><td> something </td></tr>
    <% end for %>
    </table>

    So it is quite easy to get the empty table if the collection is empty.

  • What about plugins? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AndrewStephens (815287) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @04:43PM (#14562190) Homepage
    I would be interested in seeing how many web pages use Java applets, Flash, Shockwave, Quicktime, ActiveX controls etc, etc. Sadly the authors did not include this information.

  • For folks does not (want) to run Firefox (Score:4, Informative)

    by Ilgaz (86384) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @05:43PM (#14562733) Homepage
    http://www.adobe.com/svg/viewer/install/main.html [adobe.com] got suitable plugins for browsers/OS of choice.

    Notice that I got SVG plugin installed for ages, Safari didn't display the graphs. Is it because I am not using "a browser with CSS"? Well, nevermind really...

    This is the thing why I and others have negative views against firefox, svg and even .ogg. Rootless promotion of this kind...

  • Wisdom (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AeroIllini (726211) <aeroillini.gmail@com> on Wednesday January 25 2006, @05:44PM (#14562737)
    They've really hit on some wisdom here.

    There are several statistics they quoted which I have suspected for a long time, but only now can confirm with numbers.

    more than half of pages use the target attribute on the a element somewhere.


    I can't begin to describe the frustration I feel when I'm forced to use Internet Explorer and clicking links causes pages to fire up in a million new windows. Whether or not a link opens in a new window, a new tab, or the current window/tab really should be a client-side choice. Webmasters think they're being helpful by letting you separate your workspace into many windows, but they're really just slowing people down. Thank God for Firefox.

    It seems most pages use presentational attributes: the fourth most used attribute across all elements is the table element's border attribute, followed by the height and width attributes on img, followed by <table width="">, <table cellspacing="">, <img border="">, and <table cellpadding="">. Interestingly, though, the most frequently used attribute on the body element (namely bgcolor) is only used on around half of pages, with all the other presentational attributes on body being used even less. One possible explanation is that on average, colors are mostly done using CSS, while layout is mostly done using HTML tables.


    This makes perfect sense. While colors, fonts and styles are pretty much standard in a cross-browser environment, due to many various interpretations of the CSS Box Model, coding layout purely in CSS can be a terrible chore. It's usually much quicker to do a few simply layouts in tables (header, sidebar, content) and use CSS for pretty much everything else.

  • Set-Cookie2 insecure? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tedhiltonhead (654502) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @07:03PM (#14563304)
    The linked site claims the Set-Cookie header is "considered insecure":
    The Set-Cookie header (which is one of the ten most-used headers) is present on about two orders of magnitude more pages than the Set-Cookie2 header (despite the former being considered insecure).
    After glancing over the RFC [ietf.org] for Set-Cookie2, I can't see where it says Set-Cookie is "insecure". Google turns up nothing useful. Does anybody know more about this?
    • Yeah, I misspoke on this. Set-Cookie is insecure (due to domain-crossing problems -- should a cookie sent to a.b.c get sent to z.b.c? Depends on "b" and "c" in ways that depend on month-to-month political changes around the globe), but as far as I can tell, Set-Cookie2 is also insecure. I had thought it fixed this, but apparently not.

  • Fix for Firefox 1.5 (Score:3, Informative)

    by bigbadbuccidaddy (160676) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @08:10PM (#14563792)
    If your Firefox 1.5 doesn't display the graphs, or crashes, do the following as suggested by the Google webstats author:

    Apparently there's a problem in Firefox 1.5 regarding SVG images if you
    had SVG in the registry. Try following the steps described here:

          https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30358 1#c3 [mozilla.org]

  • I'm feeling violated (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sontas (6747) on Friday January 27 2006, @01:23AM (#14576587)
    1 billion pages! Talk about a violation of privacy! The justice department is only asking for a random sample of 1 million addresses and the search results for any 1 week period. This guy gets access to 1 billion pages via the google repository (whatever that is), conducts detailed analysis of the contents of those pages, and nary a word of dissent from the vast Slashdot audience.

    • Re:Beford's Law (Score:4, Interesting)

      by EvanED (569694) <evaned@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Wednesday January 25 2006, @04:38PM (#14562140)
      I had an interesting run-in with Benford's law a bit ago. I had this typed up already, so here goes (description of the law omitted; read the Wikipedia link in the parent -- it's really cool):

      You see, my hard drive crashed about two weeks ago. It had three partitions on it, and two of them are still perfectly readable. The third is pretty well shot. (Fortunately, it was the most useless partition; it's main contents was Windows itself. This does mean ANOTHER Windows installation -- after having to do one a few weeks before -- but really that's no biggie compared with my actual data. And while I'm on that subject, I had two hard drives; when I got the newer one, I put all my work stuff on it as well as a new Linux installation specifically because it was less likely to fail, and I look back at that decision now with great happiness, because it is that foresight that has made this no big deal at all.)

      I've been trying to recover data off of the third partition, and it seems that if you do a full scan of the partition it appears as if the data was just deleted. Most of the time it's able to recover information, but not always: folder names are often lost. They show up in the recovery programs I tried as just Folder2393 for example. (Numbers ranged from 2 to 5 digits.)

      The folder numbers approximately follow Benford's law.

      Here is the approximate distribution:
      (M. S. Digit) (% of folders) (Ideal Benford %)
      1 32 30.1
      2 15 17.6
      3 12 12.5
      4 12 9.7
      5 19 7.9
      6 03 6.7
      7 03 5.8
      8 02 5.1
      9 02 4.6
    • >>> "Can anyone tell me what's here that can't be visualized with GIF's?"

      I don't think that's the point ... it's about the creation of the images, not their visualisation. These images can be created on the fly from varying data with only textual manipulation of the code - the processing will be extremely light as will the data load on the servers. Presumably the xml-to-image parsing in the browser incurs a processing penalty though.

      If you view code of one of the graphs http://code.google.com/webst [google.com]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.