AJAX - Overrated?

[Feran]

First of all, Google hasn't even coined the technology as AJAX; AJAX was a term coined by Adaptive for "Asynchronous Javascript with XML" or something along those lines, but Google merely refers to its style as "JavaScript", which, is what it basically is.

Native support for HttpRequests was not available in browsers other than Internet Explorer but with the major browsers today now supporting the function, well, it's starting a new wave in the way we look at web applications.

Admittedly, 'AJAX' isn't anything new, in fact, the general software engineering philosophy surrounding the concept of 'AJAX' is one that's been around for several years. If you've ever played a video game, that stuff is all live, centered around a main loop, and whatnot.

It's just that HttpRequest functionality in BROWSERS hasn't been available yet. Now, that it is, however, it may transform the way we look at web applications forever.

I don't want to call it AJAX, because it's ridiculous; I've coded like this before. All it is, is JavaScript HttpRequests. Not BLAH BLAH SOAP MODEL CSS XML XUL CSS DOM JAVASCRIPT ASYNCHRONOUS LET'S FILL IT WITH A BUNCH OF TECHNICAL JARGON TO MAKE IT SOUND COOLER WHEN ALL IT IS, IS A SIMPLE FREAKING HTTP REQUEST.

So yeah. I think it's friggin' awesome. It makes me orgasm to think of all the new and cool possibilities for web apps that can be done now. It will revolutionize my code for years to come.

But honestly, all of this is AJAX crap is overrated.

It's just a new toy for programmers to play with ;)

DUDE I ACCIDENTALLY DOUBLE CLICKED MY POST AND I CAN EDIT IT COOL >.>

It's not AJAX that's awesome, it's what we programmers do with it!

[MGM]

It may be overrated, but its causing a stir in the industry, so why not? I see no problem with it being "overrated"... it works, its cool, its "new" so let people call it whatever they want :D

MGM out

[Creepshow]

AJAX = Overrated. :)

[YoungCoder]

AJAX is teh 1337!1!!!1!

I'm interested in AJAX, nothing more :)

[filburt1]

It's a bandwidth-saving feature, but requires client-side support which I don't like. I still am old-school in thinking everything should be done with normal markup and HTTP protocols, no Javascript.

[Wayne Luke]

While the term AJAX may be trendy and cool right now, it is the underlying technology that is going to change the way things are done on the Internet. In the next few years this will also evolve and allow for XML based applications to proliferate.

[Dean C]

I love AJAX, I love what it can do for the end-user on webpages. But I honestly don't believe it'll stay for years to come. Something else will come along and do something better. That's how the web evolves.

[chrispadfield]

Its simply an important step in web sites becoming web apps, the reason progress down this path has been so slow is due to the lack of innovation over the last few years in browsers; however that is something that is changing; we now have 4 mainstream browsers compared with only 1 a year or two ago so new technologies are going to be implemented, and for firefox/opera/safari etc providing the tools to enable web apps to work well is in their interest, as opposed to microsoft where it is not.

[Wayne Luke]

I love AJAX, I love what it can do for the end-user on webpages. But I honestly don't believe it'll stay for years to come. Something else will come along and do something better. That's how the web evolves.
Yeah.. It is in Windows Longhorn and is called XAML. I am sure other browser/OS vendors are working on their own versions of this.

http://www.xaml.net/

Other vendors will follow just as they followed Microsoft in supporting the XMLHTTPRequest Object.

[Floris]

I do not see it as a hype you have to follow or something that is overrated or not. I see it as a new thing that can be implemented and supported by quite a few browsers and operating systems and make managing a site or using a site a lot easier, dynamic content can be used in different ways and speed up moderation tasks for example or help fix quick errors. I can see editors surf to sites on slashdot and double click to fix typos'. without having to login to a seperate backend and go through bunch of pages.

[Regs]

Has the following topic been broached:

How will AJAX affect those relying on advertising revenue based on CPM in their sites? At all?

Cheers,

~Regs.

[Wayne Luke]

Has the following topic been broached:

How will AJAX affect those relying on advertising revenue based on CPM in their sites? At all?

Cheers,

~Regs.
Why would it have any impact? It doesn't effect the placement or viewing of elements on a page.

[Regs]

Does it not affect page impressions?

[Wayne Luke]

Really depends on how it is used.

[Regs]

OK, let me be more specific.

Using vBulletin software in the future, how much of an impact will the AJAX features built-in have on page impressions? Would a 10% decrease happen? 20%? 5%?

I'm trying to get a handle for what kind of impact AJAX will have on CPM advertising revenue. If I'm mis-understanding the technology, please edumacate me!

:D

Cheers,

~Regs.

[Steve Machol]

This raises an interesting point. I wonder if the people paying for theese impressions would agree that reloading a page after making a new post is a legitimate 'impression' that they want to pay for?

Just wondering.

[Wayne Luke]

Since it is primarily adminstrative functions, the impact should be low. This thread wasn't about vBulletin but "AJAX" technologies in general. AS for a specific percentage, that has not been tracked, tested, or evaluated because it will depend on your forum settings, the habits of your users and whether or not you implement the required changes throughout or are more selective. Since the majority of the pageviews in a forum are actually viewing threads as opposed to posting them, it should have a relatively small impact. If you show advertisements in your moderation areas and rely on that for pageviews, then you could be significantly impacted.

Most CPM campaigns do not consider page reloads as legitimate views so things like quick reply and inline post editing will have a negligible impace.

[Regs]

This thread wasn't about vBulletin but "AJAX" technologies in general.I realize that, but it seemed you weren't understanding what I putting forth for discussion so I gave a specific example.

As a web publisher, CPM campaigns are an exercise in branding. I want to maximize the earnings for this 'from my perspective'. This is not to say putting CPM ads on moderating pages, etc., but on every page within reason that a site visitor happens upon.

In terms of percentages, has Jelsoft looked at the impact of pageviews here since AJAX features were introduced to the forums?

Cheers,

~Regs.

[Tailfeathers]

I also think that even if it had an impact, you'd be using less bandwidth as there would be less pages being loaded, lowering the costs of your board to you (or am I wrong?).

[RagingPenguin]

I probably will not enable this feature for replies (if it's individually selectable like that) because I think for replies, it's only valid if it is a bi-directional request which would return any other replies made since the page was loaded. Just so you'll know. I love the concept overall though.

[Freddie Bingham]

If users are having their Quick Reply posts posted via XMLHttpRequest then you are going to lose the page impression from not having the user redirected back to the same thread. You'll also lose the redirect impression, assuming you have redirects turned on and have modified the STANDARD_REDIRECT template to contain advertising code.

[Dean C]

You can always just disable the DHTML features and then you get your page impressions back to normal.

[Regs]

Thanks, very helpful replies in getting my head around any possible implications.

I also run a small advertising network and discussions like this help me plan out future offers. If it turns out that AJAX is really going to take hold and the trade-offs are too great to ignore, I may start to change my ad network offerings to a strictly CPC based strategy (or offer both but redefine how CPM stuff is structured).

Cheers,

~Regs.

[tamarian]

I don't want to call it AJAX, because it's ridiculous; I've coded like this before. All it is, is JavaScript HttpRequests. Not BLAH BLAH SOAP MODEL CSS XML XUL CSS DOM JAVASCRIPT ASYNCHRONOUS LET'S FILL IT WITH A BUNCH OF TECHNICAL JARGON TO MAKE IT SOUND COOLER WHEN ALL IT IS, IS A SIMPLE FREAKING HTTP REQUEST.
I agree, without tokenized random iso-clustering pseudo-redundant entities (TRIPE), the whole thing hypo-cool ;)

[free thinker]

AJAX = Overrated. :)

Agreed! :rolleyes:

I might almost say ... AJAX = Annoying

As if people aren't lazy enough nowadays, now we don't even have to find a button to click! Buttons, links, menus are ESSENTIAL for aesthetics!

Besides, how many of you guys "accidentally" double click stuff when you are scrolling? The only thing worse than accidentally double-clicking is when it frickin' takes you somewhere...

[MGM]

Agreed! :rolleyes:

I might almost say ... AJAX = Annoying

As if people aren't lazy enough nowadays, now we don't even have to find a button to click! Buttons, links, menus are ESSENTIAL for aesthetics!

Besides, how many of you guys "accidentally" double click stuff when you are scrolling? The only thing worse than accidentally double-clicking is when it frickin' takes you somewhere...
Then you ignore it or click once more to get rid of it... its not like it takes you to a new page or anything...

And yes, people are lazy.... so shouldn't us admin try to cater to the people as much as possible? If they're lazy, we make things faster and easier for them...

MGM out

[filburt1]

Agreed! :rolleyes:

I might almost say ... AJAX = Annoying

As if people aren't lazy enough nowadays, now we don't even have to find a button to click! Buttons, links, menus are ESSENTIAL for aesthetics!

Besides, how many of you guys "accidentally" double click stuff when you are scrolling? The only thing worse than accidentally double-clicking is when it frickin' takes you somewhere...
I do agree that the interface is not intuitive. Even in full GUI programs, you normally don't double-click large blocks of text to edit them, let alone empty portions of those text. More specifically, web pages are always modeled around a single click (hyperlinks) environment, not double-clicks.

When I upgrade my site to vB 3.5, I will either disable the AJAX implementation or modify it so that it is more intuitive to those with no experience with vBulletin.

[Erwin]

I must be abnormal because I think AJAX is quite amazing - I don't see it on many websites and definitely not on forum software. It's one reason why I would want to upgrade to 3.5.

[Sn2]

Personally, I think AJAX could enhance or even revolutionize the interfaces in a lot of web applications. An interface can never be too user friendly and if AJAX can speed up every day tasks and even make it easier to do then it really can't be a bad thing.

[mcncyo]

Personally, I think AJAX could enhance or even revolutionize the interfaces in a lot of web applications. An interface can never be too user friendly and if AJAX can speed up every day tasks and even make it easier to do then it really can't be a bad thing.


I also agree with this statement. I think it will make it easer, less bandwith, less cost. I think you will save more on bandwith then on a few impression. Also you might even get better click though rating which you can then increases you cost per clickthough.

[Kier]

The interactivity allowed by AJAX will change the way we use the web. Dramatically.

Client-side interaction is here to stay.

[Dean C]

Hmm, in fact it could increase bandwidth. It all depends how it's used, in vB it's used in places that are not used all the time :) The only place you may get big bandwidth problems is on huge sites, where find by user is used a lot in the search feature.

[Feran]

It's a bandwidth-saving feature, but requires client-side support which I don't like. I still am old-school in thinking everything should be done with normal markup and HTTP protocols, no Javascript.
Bandwidth-saving? Is it really?

I implemented some fun little XMLHttpRequest apps as soon as I read about the existence of the function here on vB (yeah... me not reading up on the world too much lately...), but I have a loop that pings the server every 20 milliseconds; for that to save me bandwidth seems kinda.. uh... untrue?

I'm personally scared because as long as that page is open, it's continually, every 20 milliseconds, pinging my damned server for a response. Even if it's a few bytes of text, this is going 500 times every second, and will continue to go while the page is open.

Anyone else wondering about this?

EDIT- Well, the reason my first app was like this is because it was a chat app. Secondly, also realize that things I'd develop, like gaming applications, LIVE ones purely client-based, would be high-bandwidth.

In a situation like vB editing though, you can just forward the request off to the server and get a response. My apps... no. Google Suggest? No.

People who continually say it saves bandwidth are either not programmers or aren't thinking broadly

[Jerry]

Bandwidth-saving? Is it really?

I implemented some fun little XMLHttpRequest apps as soon as I read about the existence of the function here on vB (yeah... me not reading up on the world too much lately...), but I have a loop that pings the server every 20 milliseconds; for that to save me bandwidth seems kinda.. uh... untrue?

I'm personally scared because as long as that page is open, it's continually, every 20 milliseconds, pinging my damned server for a response. Even if it's a few bytes of text, this is going 500 times every second, and will continue to go while the page is open.

Anyone else wondering about this?

So your implementation means the whole technology is flawed ?

[MGM]

So your implementation means the whole technology is flawed ?
Yea, I found that kind of odd too lol

Haven't you ever thought that maybe you implemented it wrong or that there are other ways?

MGM out

[Feran]

I edited my post =.=...

See:

Well, the reason my first app was like this is because it was a chat app. Secondly, also realize that things I'd develop, like gaming applications, LIVE ones purely client-based, would be high-bandwidth.

In a situation like vB editing though, you can just forward the request off to the server and get a response. My apps... no. Google Suggest? No.

Go tell Google that their implementation is not good for saving bandwidth and the whole technology is flawed =.=... i was only saying that it takes up bandwidth! Any server app takes up bandwidth.. I'm just saying why the hell is everyone saying it saves it, when that's only true in certain scenarios. Open up your minds, people.

Live gaming interaction between two people - I need to ping the server constantly on both clients to check for any action on either of their parts, and I can't send a request and then force-invoke a function on a different machine without any way to communicate whatsoever. Chat app too! Seriously!

All AJAX is is HttpRequests from JavaScript! People just never noticed it before. And I love my new toy. I'm just saying all this jargon and crap is overrated BLAH BLAH SOAP DOM XML XUL CSS shut the hell up it's a JavaScript function..

[Dean C]

If you're pinging the server every 20milliseconds something is seriously wrong with your implementation as Jerry pointed out. The object should be called in response to a users action, not an ongoing series of events. For example checking if a username exists, wait until 2-5 seconds has passed between the time of the last keystroke and the current time and then make the request.

[Jerry]

I'm just saying why the hell is everyone saying it saves it, when that's only true in certain scenarios. Open up your minds, people.

So you implement it in a manner that doesn't save bandwidth where it probably shouldn't be used anyway and then use that as a base for proving that it is no good ?

Talking of open minds what other technologies did you prototype ?

People who continually say it saves bandwidth are either not programmers or aren't thinking broadly

Does that apply in reverse to people who think it wastes bandwidth too ?

[Jerry]

SOAP DOM XML XUL CSS shut the hell up it's a JavaScript function..

Errr no.

[Feran]

If you're pinging the server every 20milliseconds something is seriously wrong with your implementation as Jerry pointed out. The object should be called in response to a users action, not an ongoing series of events.
You people are out to get me but you don't seem to understand I'm not stupid.

I referenced a live chat application. You're telling me that I can have a room with fifty people, and that I should only show what they're sending to the room after the user generates an event?

Honestly, then what's the point of having XMLHttpRequest in the first place! It's a simple server-side web application.

There's nothing "seriously wrong with [my] implementation"; I created something to try out the new function I learned about. Google Suggest resolves itself every 20 milliseconds as well; go tell them that they don't know what they're doing.

You just don't read my posts =P

So you implement it in a manner that doesn't save bandwidth where it probably shouldn't be used anyway and then use that as a base for proving that it is no good ?
Jerry, am I trying to prove that it's no good? Furthermore, it was a test app under the assumption that I would eventually create live gaming interaction systems using this model as opposed to having to create annoying Java applets or release binaries for download so clients can use my crap.

I'm only bashing all the techno-jargon that goes along with it. To me, at the end of the day, it's a JavaScript function that I can use to simulate web requests without having to refresh the page. I can do it from JavaScript, while everyone else wants to coin the terminology with XML and XUL and CSS and the DOM when it all really doesn't matter to me. Go inflate the description of the technology elsewhere; it is a JavaScript function, end of story.

Does that apply in reverse to people who think it wastes bandwidth too ?

I hate jerks who don't read your posts and bash you under the pretense that I don't like it, when I said, in my first post - the very first post in this thread --

So yeah. I think it's friggin' awesome. It makes me orgasm to think of all the new and cool possibilities for web apps that can be done now. It will revolutionize my code for years to come.

...

It's not AJAX that's awesome, it's what we programmers do with it!

I'm bashing the name. I love the function. You're just being an ass, so lay off.

[Jerry]

Sticking to the point and not calling me a jerk or an ass might be a better route.

Your logic is flawed and your attack on me because I point that out, along with a defense for acronym, being that things need names so people can refer to them is more than uncalled for.

[Dean C]

Well I'd strongly disagree with using Ajax for a chat room anyway. There are far more efficient technologies available to do it. If google suggest requested new data every 20milliseconds (which I still don't believe), then quite frankly that's a poor implementation of it too and they are wasting bandwidth. Why send a request every 20milliseconds, since when did your average user type that fast?

Also as Jerry pointed out, it's one thing having a nice discussion on a technology, but don't resort to name-calling...

[Regs]

While the 'name-calling' shouldn't be done, you gotta admit, it's very frustrating to be trying to explain your point of view and have others either twist or put words in your mouth :D

[free thinker]

I stopped in to check on this thread ... and found a landmine field.

Yikes! Have no fear, I am not hear to bash anyone or call names.

Anyway, my opinion is simple... (as a "layperson" with "no real programming knowledge") ... I just *personally* don't like the scrollover use of it for editing posts. And I hope that these AJAX implementations are optional in future releases of vBulletin.

Have a nice night everyone! :)

[Erwin]

AJAX can potentially saves bandwidth by avoiding whole page refreshes in a forum environment.

Obviously, as a chat app, this may be different.

[cirisme]

I'm just saying why the hell is everyone saying it saves it, when that's only true in certain scenarios

Perhaps. Try a full HTML meta-refresh every 20 milliseconds, though, and see how great the bandwidth difference is. If you're doing it wrong, there will be no difference.

[Waza04]

Google Suggest does NOT check for data every 20ms!!! It only checks for data when:

A keyword has been typed that is different from a previously looked up keyword.
A keyword has been typed that is NOT in the local cache (identical lookups are NEVER made).
Besides this, the Google Suggest JavaScript code is VERY clever, it works out how fast you type and wheter is should grab data after three letters typed, one letter typed etc... etc... etc....

[cirisme]

Google Suggest does NOT check for data every 20ms!!! It only checks for data when:

A keyword has been typed that is different from a previously looked up keyword.
A keyword has been typed that is NOT in the local cache (identical lookups are NEVER made).
Besides this, the Google Suggest JavaScript code is VERY clever, it works out how fast you type and wheter is should grab data after three letters typed, one letter typed etc... etc... etc....
Actually, I think it's timed to 2 or 3 seconds. But it will only do it if you've typed something not in the cache, it doesn't sit there every few seconds refreshing the data when you're not typing.

[nexialys]

funny to read that all comments are from Google evaluation... like Google == Microsoft in the 90's ...

oh, and the comments about the hits-advertising-revenues... funny... a forum is not a advertising platform, and advertisers will have to find better ways to do their marketing, this is why Marketing is a job, not a hobby.

[Regs]

funny to read that all comments are from Google evaluation... like Google == Microsoft in the 90's ...

oh, and the comments about the hits-advertising-revenues... funny... a forum is not a advertising platform, and advertisers will have to find better ways to do their marketing, this is why Marketing is a job, not a hobby.How is that funny?

:confused: