"This site is heavily trafficked by web developers...so I'd expect the more capable browsers to be doing the best there."

So IE, then, is more capable than both Opera and Firefox? :) Neat.

Every time I see a story like this, I think something like this:

http://virtuelvis.com/archives/2005/05/statistics-nonsense

In this particular instance, W3Schools admit that the stats are merely culled from their logs. To take one example, given identical market share, Firefox 1.1 would show up in their statistics as being less popular than Firefox 1.0, simply because of the "fast back" feature that was checked in recently. Today, that already biases their statistics against Opera. And that's just a single instance of log files being untrustworthy when used to indicate market share, there are plenty of other reasons why looking at log files doesn't work.

Flawed statistics are meaningless. The fact that they claim Firefox has hit a milestone is utterly irrelevent, because they have no idea whether that number is at all accurate.

Just to be fair, Jim. The site does not really say anything about Firefox, and states clearly that the stats are not at all realistic when reflecting real-world usage.

"W3Schools is a website for people with an interest for web technologies. These people are more interested in using alternative browsers than the average user. The average user tends to use Internet Explorer, since it comes preinstalled with Windows. Most do not seek out other browsers.

These facts indicate that the browser figures below are not 100% realistic. Other web sites have statistics showing that Internet Explorer is used by at least 80% of the users."

Nunya, go troll somewhere else, like the ruins of Microsoft Chat servers. Thx.

The site's statistics are not meant to give exact number of how many users got what. It only shows the trends... the changes in usage of specific browsers. The site just pointing out the increasing popularity of firefox, thats all.

I don't care how many people got firefox or how many times they farted while surfing. All I care about is the trends, to see what people are going for. It is clear that more and more webdevelopers are going for firefox. I am glad to see growth of firefox usage among webdevelopers. Thats mean more and more sites will become more friendly to firefox and other browers dues to web standards.

Jim: even without fast back, Firefox would load the page that you go back to from its cache. With fast back turned on, it only skips construction of the DOM tree and/or rendering objects, so nothing changes in regards to site statistics.

I guess from that 60% of IE, 30% are those who still don't know about HTML and started to learn and the other 30% are those web developers who are forced to be in IE for checking compatibility and thus searched for IE bugs and compatibility issues.

Jim, I don't think they that their statistics are based on page hits, so it doesn't care whether your browser is using a very aggressive caching strategy or not.

--Thomas

Jim ea:
The way to read those statistics is not to look at the absolute numbers (hey, it is so-much percent) but to look at the changes that develop in the same site the last two years.
The 'power user' population that w3schools may represent is about same the kind of people as one year ago. Then see how the numbers change and Firefox shows a very steady increase at the expense of others.

Agree with Barend. The trend is what really matter.

That's one hell of a trend allright!

W3Schools-measured Gecko percentage in May (Firefox + Mozilla + Netscape 7):

2003: 5.1%
2004: 12.4%
2005: 29.3%

Impressive!

Congrats to Firefox.

But come on Asa. "More capable"? Yet another subtle jab. Well I guess there is a reason Fx marketing has worked so well.

For what reason do people using Opera have this blog bookmarked?

- Chris

Sorry to join in the "trolling", but Nunya's first comment has a point. If it's true that Firefox is beating Opera because it's more capable, then why would it not also be true that IE is beating Firefox because it's more capable?

Either IE is a far more capable browser than Firefox, or the statistics don't actually mean much.

"I don't think they that their statistics are based on page hits, so it doesn't care whether your browser is using a very aggressive caching strategy or not."

I can't find a reference, but I think their stats are based on hits. The caching might make a bit of difference, but I imagine the RSS reader in Firefox repeatedly hitting their feed would make more of a difference - anyone who has the feed bookmarked will be generating hits hourly and every time they start the browser.

Opera has an RSS reader to. Just in case you didn't know. :D Dunno about any differences in the way they operate though (can't be too different?).

@Nunya: The competetion between MSIE and the other browsers for Windows is one of choice vs. sheer inertia. Most people use MSIE not because it is more capable, but because it comes with the OS, and they do not know anything else. However, once people get up and start looking for another browser, Firefox wins most of the time.

"If it's true that Firefox is beating Opera because it's more capable, then why would it not also be true that IE is beating Firefox because it's more capable?"

but IE is not beating firefox. IE has been out a lot longer than Firefox and of course had significantly more market share than Firefox when Firefox was introduced. And since IE has been in steady decline for quiet a while, you can deduce that IE's currently higher percentage is a necessary and temporary side effect of Firefox's relatively recent arrival on the scene. To put it another way: web surfers are not going to all switch to a new browser in unison over night; it's a gradual process.

Sineral,

Yes, good point, IE is more popular than Firefox on w3schools for reasons other than it being a better piece of software.

It is clearly irrelevant to web statistics how good Firefox is, how good Opera is, how good Safari is and how good IE is, and this is why Asa's comment is stupid. There are a huge amount of factors involved in the growth\decline of browsers and the small jab at Opera in the blog post is retarded for that reason.

"... then why would it not also be true that IE is beating Firefox because it's more capable?"

First - Nunya was kidding. See that smiley? Secondly that statement would only be true if everyone surfing W3Schools' website were told about all alternative browsers a the same time and gave the matter some realy thought, and then picked the browser they considered most capable... As it is, the alternative browsers are inclining and IE is declining.

"But come on Asa. "More capable"? Yet another subtle jab. Well I guess there is a reason Fx marketing has worked so well."

Are you Opera fans just jealous of Firefox's success? Is that why you're here, spewing your bile over every single post of Asa's? Go spread the word about Opera instead! (And you'll probably find you'll have more success working on some browser n00bs than on the die-hard Mozilla/Firefox fans you'll find at this blog.

"There are a huge amount of factors involved in the growth\decline of browsers and the small jab at Opera in the blog post is retarded for that reason."

Quite right. But that doesn't change the fact that the most probable reason Opera's numbers have decreased is people (partly?) switching to Firefox. (I know several people... etc... bla bla.)

But come on Asa. "More capable"? Yet another subtle jab. Well I guess there is a reason Fx marketing has worked so well.

Am I the only one who read that as being a jab at Internet Explorer, not at Opera?

Either IE is a far more capable browser than Firefox, or the statistics don't actually mean much.

Isn't it obvious he means "more capable browsers" are doing the best on web developer-focused sites compared to more mainstream sites?

I think some people here either need serious lessons in reading comprehension, or are being deliberately obtuse.

Kelson:
>> Am I the only one who read that as being a jab at Internet Explorer, not at Opera?

Yes. Look at how it is worded. The way it is worded, it implies that FF is most capable, IE second, and Opera last. He didnt say "the most capable browser doing best", but "the MORE capable browsers doing BETTER". And Opera has the least share of the 3 on w3c.

Chris C:
>> For what reason do people using Opera have this blog bookmarked?

I don't. But I like reading what Asa has to say sometimes. Then he started to take jabs at Opera, and I did not want to stand by and watch misinformation or misleading statements being taken to heart by all of his readers.

David:
>> Are you Opera fans just jealous of Firefox's success? Is that why you're here, spewing your bile over every single post of Asa's? Go spread the word about Opera instead! (And you'll probably find you'll have more success working on some browser n00bs than on the die-hard Mozilla/Firefox fans you'll find at this blog.

Not at all David. I'm happy for Firefox' success. I'm NOT happy when Mozilla people use its success to make jabs at other capable browsers (such as Opera). I DO spread the word about Opera as much as I can, and I do NOT expect to convert anyone here to Opera. I am simply here to clear up any misunderstandings, misconceptions or misleading information regarding Opera.

Now, why don't you say the same for Asa? He comments on Opera blogs. So what? Who really cares.

Kelson:
>> Isn't it obvious he means "more capable browsers" are doing the best on web developer-focused sites compared to more mainstream sites?

Yes it is very obvious, and I never implied or said otherwise. In fact, that is the very point I was making!

Maybe you need lessons in reading comprehension ;)

vcv:
>> Isn't it obvious he means "more capable browsers" are doing the best on web developer-focused sites compared to more mainstream sites?

"Yes it is very obvious, and I never implied or said otherwise. In fact, that is the very point I was making!"

1. Either you're posting under several names, or I was replying to someone else, who was implying otherwise.

2. You did imply otherwise earlier in the same comment:

"The way it is worded, it implies that FF is most capable, IE second, and Opera last. He didnt say "the most capable browser doing best", but "the MORE capable browsers doing BETTER". And Opera has the least share of the 3 on w3c."

I'm sorry, there must be something I'm missing here.

This whole time I've been saying that he is implying that the most capable browser[b]S[/b] are doing the best. Not browser, but BROWSERS. Firefox share is growing while IE and Opera are descreasing. But IE still has 67% and doing very well. He said the most capable browsers are doing the best. The ones doing the best are IE and Firefox. Opera is behind FF, IE and Mozilla. This implies that IE and Firefox are the most capable, with Opera being behind at least IE, and I would assume Mozilla since he works for them.

How does this not make sense?

vcv: For the past year, discussions of browser marketshare on various Mozilla sites have had to take into account the audience of the website providing the stats. Sites like w3schools, aimed at web developers and power users, have had a much faster uptake of Mozilla-based browsers (mostly at IE's expense) than the web as a whole.

And for the past year, unless that disparity is acknowledged in a "Such-and-such site shows Mozilla/Firefox/Gecko getting X%!" post, someone will call the poster on it.

Having seen this type of post over and over on Mozillazine and elsewhere, the statement looks to me like the standard disclaimer: Browsers with X characteristic do best on this kind of site. Therefore you see Firefox managing 25% on w3schools instead of, say, 7% elsewhere on the web.

In fact, Opera also appears to be doing better on w3schools than elsewhere. W3schools has shown it fluctuating around 1.9% since the beginning of the year. A quick (and entirely unscientific) Google search for "opera marketshare 2005" turned up quotes of around or below 1%, except for one site which cited 2.9% in March, but also had higher Firefox and Safari rates than average.

That's fine and dandy. But I'm discussing what Asa said, which is a bit different. If he MEANT otherwise, he should say so himself. Based on his wording and the English language, the most logical conclusion is that he thinks Firefox, IE, and assuming Mozilla are the most capable browsers. Maybe he didn't mean such, but he should be more clear then and learn how to word things properly.

vcv: Based solely on the English language, what Asa said was ambiguous. You're right that it wasn't worded clearly. But the history of Mozilla marketshare discussions -- of which Asa has been a part -- provides a context which favors my interpretation over yours.

After all, your interpretation suggests, as Nunya joked, that he thinks IE is more capable than Firefox. I seriously doubt that's what he had in mind.

Not, not at all. My interpretation suggests Fx being the "most capable" based on gaining share on the site and IE probably second based on overall share.

Opera lost about 5% over the past month.
IE lost abut 2.5% over the past month.

Asa talked about market gain/loss. This would suggest IE being more capable as it is losing less share.