<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>userbinator</author><text>I think the trend of &amp;quot;turning a primarily content-based site into a dynamic app&amp;quot;, and indeed most of what has been referred to as &amp;quot;Web progress&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;moving the Web forward&amp;quot;, etc. comes from the desire of content producers to obtain and maintain more control over their content. Look at how browsers have evolved to de-emphasise features which give the user control while adding those that are author-targeted.&lt;p&gt;We&amp;#x27;re moving from browsers being viewers for simple HTML documents (which can be copied, shared, and linked via simple means), to a platform for running complex applications written in JavaScript which often render data retrieved in proprietary formats from proprietary APIs. The &amp;quot;open by default&amp;quot; nature of plain HTML has become the &amp;quot;closed by default&amp;quot; of the data processed by web apps, much like with many native apps. Native app platforms (e.g. mobile) are also gradually becoming more &amp;quot;closed by default&amp;quot;; I&amp;#x27;m not sure if that&amp;#x27;s a related trend.&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Google can say more sternly that using JavaScript can have ugly consequences for user experience and accessibility, but they are swimming upstream: The web seems to be moving on to fancy new technologies regardless of what their SEO says.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Part of the reason is because Google themselves are doing this in many of their products... some of their employees probably disagree with &amp;quot;JS everything&amp;quot;, but they&amp;#x27;re in the minority.</text><parent_chain><item><author>compbio</author><text>I feel that dynamic websites are not websites, but applications. Even after this thorough research, I&amp;#x27;d still be very wary of turning a primarily content-based site into a dynamic app.&lt;p&gt;A plain HTML site is accessible, and will be accessible in a 1000 years. A site depending on (external) JavaScript sources will force John Titor to travel back in time to find version 1.x of jQuery. Starting with JavaScript abandons principles of progressive enhancement. Sometimes there is not even a fallback&amp;#x2F;graceful degradation, reminding me of these 2001-era: &amp;quot;Best viewed at 800x600 resolution in Netscape&amp;quot;-sites.&lt;p&gt;Google holds enormous clout among SEO&amp;#x27;s. Google says they will factor in site-speed and a large fraction of the web will become faster. Google can say more sternly that using JavaScript can have ugly consequences for user experience and accessibility, but they are swimming upstream: The web seems to be moving on to fancy new technologies regardless of what their SEO says.&lt;p&gt;Not much good comes from HTML5 JavaScript fans forcing your hand. Tor enabled JavaScript, because too much of the web would break without it, leading to a poor user experience. This led to a huge security gaffe, which I fully blame on webdevelopers eschewing basic principles, to get that slideshow running.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>How Googlebot crawls JavaScript</title><url>http://searchengineland.com/tested-googlebot-crawls-javascript-heres-learned-220157</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>axx</author><text>IMHO: Websites that don&amp;#x27;t have &amp;quot;realtime&amp;quot; content should always stick with traditional HTML. I&amp;#x27;m a Webdeveloper myself and i don&amp;#x27;t like the JavaScript Frontend trend.&lt;p&gt;Many Devs use Frontend JS in places where it&amp;#x27;s absolutely not needed. If you&amp;#x27;re building an App that updates in realtime, shows informations while it&amp;#x27;s created, i&amp;#x27;m fine with Frontend JS, but it&amp;#x27;s an overkill for most content pages.&lt;p&gt;Sure, it depends on your implementation details, but as i said, it&amp;#x27;s just my opinion.</text><parent_chain><item><author>compbio</author><text>I feel that dynamic websites are not websites, but applications. Even after this thorough research, I&amp;#x27;d still be very wary of turning a primarily content-based site into a dynamic app.&lt;p&gt;A plain HTML site is accessible, and will be accessible in a 1000 years. A site depending on (external) JavaScript sources will force John Titor to travel back in time to find version 1.x of jQuery. Starting with JavaScript abandons principles of progressive enhancement. Sometimes there is not even a fallback&amp;#x2F;graceful degradation, reminding me of these 2001-era: &amp;quot;Best viewed at 800x600 resolution in Netscape&amp;quot;-sites.&lt;p&gt;Google holds enormous clout among SEO&amp;#x27;s. Google says they will factor in site-speed and a large fraction of the web will become faster. Google can say more sternly that using JavaScript can have ugly consequences for user experience and accessibility, but they are swimming upstream: The web seems to be moving on to fancy new technologies regardless of what their SEO says.&lt;p&gt;Not much good comes from HTML5 JavaScript fans forcing your hand. Tor enabled JavaScript, because too much of the web would break without it, leading to a poor user experience. This led to a huge security gaffe, which I fully blame on webdevelopers eschewing basic principles, to get that slideshow running.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>How Googlebot crawls JavaScript</title><url>http://searchengineland.com/tested-googlebot-crawls-javascript-heres-learned-220157</url></story>