News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:For having raised $90mil, the source of UStream is pretty... by daleharvey on Tuesday August 10, 2010 @11:28AM (#1591784)
you mean the viability of their business has nothing to do with if their html validates, as long as it just works?

darn

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:For having raised $90mil, the source of UStream is pretty... by fleaflicker on Tuesday August 10, 2010 @11:29AM (#1591786)
No user is going to turn away from the site because the HTML source is unattractive.
[ Parent | on HN ]
[deleted]
Re:For having raised $90mil, the source of UStream is pretty... by arnorhs on Tuesday August 10, 2010 @11:45AM (#1591859)
I'd like to know if there are any investors that

1. know how to read source

2. let that affect their decision of investing

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:For having raised $90mil, the source of UStream is pretty... by jgv on Tuesday August 10, 2010 @11:39AM (#1591834)
"js.twitter_widget.bad_words" in the UstreamLabels object is quite a lovely read
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:For having raised $90mil, the source of UStream is pretty... by tleite on Tuesday August 10, 2010 @11:45AM (#1591860)
It all depends on what your site is about.

The HTML source attractiveness really matters if the site is about programming, CSS, etc. On the other hand, layout attractiveness does not matter that much if you're about results... see Google.com

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:For having raised $90mil, the source of UStream is pretty... by maukdaddy on Tuesday August 10, 2010 @11:17AM (#1591724)
WTF is this for?

  "js.twitter_widget.bad_words": 'ass,14 words,5 words,anal,anal
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:For having raised $90mil, the source of UStream is pretty... by warfangle on Tuesday August 10, 2010 @11:20AM (#1591738)
They probably have a live twitter widget somewhere, and don't want raunchy @mentions to show up.

The real wtf, of course, is that it's a comma delimited string - not an array..

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:For having raised $90mil, the source of UStream is pretty... by maukdaddy on Tuesday August 10, 2010 @11:22AM (#1591749)
On a quick look I couldn't find that variable referenced anywhere though. And it looks like there are two variables with the same data: js.twitter_widget.bad_words and js.social_stream.badwords
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:For having raised $90mil, the source of UStream is pretty... by barrkel on Tuesday August 10, 2010 @11:32AM (#1591800)
It looks to me like a string resource table for translation, possibly auto-included in multiple page, and used by widgets that exist only on some pages.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:For having raised $90mil, the source of UStream is pretty... by kellysutton on Tuesday August 10, 2010 @11:19AM (#1591733)
The worst is that it's not even an array, it's a comma-delimited string.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:For having raised $90mil, the source of UStream is pretty... by trevelyan on Tuesday August 10, 2010 @12:25PM (#1592032)
Why is this a bad decision? It's much easier for a non-programmer to update.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:For having raised $90mil, the source of UStream is pretty... by maukdaddy on Tuesday August 10, 2010 @11:21AM (#1591743)
How much analytical data could they need? I see Nielsen, quantserv, comscore, and Google.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:For having raised $90mil, the source of UStream is pretty... by theDoug on Tuesday August 10, 2010 @11:30AM (#1591791)
Good advertisers (read: more than AdWords) tend to require traffic verification from at least two of the first three providers you list. Google Analytics is likely for their own purposes.

When you're selling page views and clicks by the thousand or million, you want to make sure you're not being ripped off.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:For having raised $90mil, the source of UStream is pretty... by mattyfo on Tuesday August 10, 2010 @11:33AM (#1591801)
Page loads pretty quickly for me in Chrome, that should count for something.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:For having raised $90mil, the source of UStream is pretty... by fun2have on Tuesday August 10, 2010 @11:28AM (#1591783)
tech debt?
[ Parent | on HN ]