AJAX vs. JSON : Google Trends

[VK]

Google Trends is an all new service (started May 10) and I have not
responsability for proper query or data accuracy.
Overall seems pretty close to what could be observed by the post
history in c.l.j. Just curious why exactly Japan got so exclusively hot
on JSON ?

<http://www.google.com/trends?q=AJAX+JavaScript&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all>
<http://www.google.com/trends?q=JSON+JavaScript&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all>

[Richard Cornford]

VK wrote:

Google Trends is an all new service (started May 10) and I
have not responsability for proper query or data accuracy.
It is not even a week since it was demonstrated to you that google is
not capable of presenting statistics that are even consistent, let alone
accurate.
Overall seems pretty close to what could be observed by
the post history in c.l.j.
What if it does?
Just curious why exactly Japan got so exclusively
hot on JSON ?

<http://www.google.com/trends?q=AJAX+JavaScript&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all> http://www.google.com/trends?q=JSON+...o=all&date=all
As none of those pages show any actual numbers a comparison graph would
be more significant:-

<URL: http://www.google.com/trends?q=JSON+...JAX+JavaScript

Given your evident talent for being irrelevant, if you are going to post
this sort of thing don't you think you should make some sort of point?
Otherwise you are just making a noise to no purpose.

Richard.

[VK]

Richard Cornford wrote:

As none of those pages show any actual numbers a comparison graph would
be more significant:-
<URL: http://www.google.com/trends?q=JSON+...JAX+JavaScript
ACK
Given your evident talent for being irrelevant, if you are going to post
this sort of thing don't you think you should make some sort of point?
Otherwise you are just making a noise to no purpose.

AJAX and JSON possible usage trends is a noise at c.l.j.? As you wish.

Can give you three points though:

1) Google Trends is a cool new monitoring service (unless considered it
as a part of a unknown world conspiracy). Just for hell of that.

2) AJAX interest shows rather stable growth since its "re-discover" in
late 2004. JSON interest after an explosive popularity after its
"re-discover" shows some slow but stable decline. That would be a thing
to think why to authors. Comparison is especially interesting since
both were not invented or discovered: they existed long time before but
only relatively recently got widely requested.

3) Presumably it can be used with in conjuction with Gougle Groups
archives and see - just for example - the most popular requests in
c.l.j. history as well as the most popular requests of the year 2006
(and not 2004 as it is now ;-)

[Randy Webb]

VK said the following on 5/14/2006 1:18 PM:

Richard Cornford wrote:

As none of those pages show any actual numbers a comparison graph would
be more significant:-
<URL: http://www.google.com/trends?q=JSON+...JAX+JavaScript
ACK

Given your evident talent for being irrelevant, if you are going to post
this sort of thing don't you think you should make some sort of point?
Otherwise you are just making a noise to no purpose.

AJAX and JSON possible usage trends is a noise at c.l.j.? As you wish.

No more so than you claiming:
<quote>
If you are curious about software security, it's OT to c.l.j.
</quote>

Especially when that software security issue deals with ActiveX and
scripting.
Can give you three points though:

1) Google Trends is a cool new monitoring service (unless considered it
as a part of a unknown world conspiracy). Just for hell of that.
It may be new, and it may be cool, but that doesn't make it worth
anything. Google's inability to produce accurate statistics - not even
stats that agree with themselves - points to it being inaccurate and
thus worthless.
2) AJAX interest shows rather stable growth since its "re-discover" in
late 2004. JSON interest after an explosive popularity after its
"re-discover" shows some slow but stable decline. That would be a thing
to think why to authors.
Because of the buzzword. The main reason you see the "growth" in the so
called AJAX is board room pencil pushing pundits wanting to brag at the
country club about "we use AJAX".
Comparison is especially interesting since both were not invented or
discovered: they existed long time before but only relatively recently
got widely requested.
Only until the board room pundits can't brag about AJAX anymore and
discover the JSON buzz word.
3) Presumably it can be used with in conjuction with Gougle Groups
archives and see - just for example - the most popular requests in
c.l.j. history as well as the most popular requests of the year 2006
(and not 2004 as it is now ;-)

Again, Google's statistics have been shown to be flawed. They can't even
agree with themselves. So no, it is not worth anything for research.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

[Richard Cornford]

VK wrote:

Richard Cornford wrote:

As none of those pages show any actual numbers a comparison graph
would be more significant:-
<URL:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=JSON+...JAX+JavaScript
ACK

Given your evident talent for being irrelevant, if you are going
to post this sort of thing don't you think you should make some
sort of point? Otherwise you are just making a noise to no
purpose.

AJAX and JSON possible usage trends is a noise at c.l.j.? As you
wish.

Your record on the comprehension of the value of statistics is already
so poor that your opinions on this subject are s worthless as your
opinions on any other. I am reminded that you once posted server logs to
this group in an attempt to demonstrate some obscure point that you were
unable to actually state, and that those logs supposedly reported more
individuals using Safari than using Mac OS X. An obvious inconsistency
that did not strike you as rendering those statistics worthless.

There is no certain relationship between what google tends reports (the
occurrence of terms in google searches) and the usage of any web
technology.
Can give you three points though:

1) Google Trends is a cool new monitoring service (unless
considered it as a part of a unknown world conspiracy).
Just for hell of that.
Coolness is no substitute for credibility or relevance. (And the phrase
is: "just for _the_ hell of _it_.")

<snip> ... . That would be a
thing to think why to authors.

A mind that puts those words together in that order and then thinks it
has said something will gibber incoherently forever. The result will be
noise and no more.

Richard.