[irrelative]

One might even say that 100% of 333,410 sites use vulnerable javascript libraries

[Fnoord]

The information "77% of 433,000" contains the sample size number (433k). "100% of 333,410" does not contain a sample size number. The lack of the sample size number makes the data (and title) less meaningful. I'd go as far saying it makes the data (and title) meaningless.

[jjnoakes]

Those means different things.

Their wording means "we checked X sites and 77% of them met some criteria", which can be extrapolated to higher values of X (assuming the proper statistical care is taken, etc).

Your wording implies the same, but that's not good because you can't extrapolate to a larger X. You chose the sites after knowing they already met the criteria, and that changes the meaning.

[spurcell93]

I get the sense OP was being a bit snide

[bigiain]

The snide version would be "100% of 433,000". (Which is what I initially parsed it as, and nodded in agreement...)

[jazoom]

I thought exactly the same thing but wasn't dedicated enough to do the calculation.