Click a link and need to go back 10x to get back. Yes, I enjoy the footballs.
You must log in or register to comment.
Couldn’t be me. Opening links in a new tab master race
I firmly believe this is how we wound up with tabs as a feature in the first place.
Unrelated, but nice username
Thank you!
Middle click is muscle memory. Has been for 20 years.
Firefox should really implement a feature that hides this bullshit from the previous sites menu
Oh man I hate this shit so much.
microsoft does this with their community support/forums/whatever and it’s annoying when you’re trying to look up a problem in google. :///
Double-clicking the back button usually works for me on Firefox
Holy smokes I never realized this intended behaviour, but of couse it is…
Out of curiosity how old are you?
I’m 31, in my defense I was exhausted on tuesday…
Alright lol so long as you understand being forged by the fires of the early internet deems you responsible to be aware of such tomfoolery against us internet patrons. Convince 10 computer illiterate friends to install ublock origin and all shall be forgiven haha
Definitely doing my part on that front.
Aren’t they scamming their advertisers too? Because if you click the back button a bunch of times it’s gonna reload a bunch of them on every click. At least if your internet is fast enough.
Impressions are usually deduped, meaning multiple impressions from the same user during the same session are just counted as one. The big ad networks are extremely careful to avoid miscounting of any sort and will generally err on the side of undercounting rather than overcounting (since telling advertisers they got more impressions or clicks than reported is way better than telling them the numbers were accidentally inflated). Of course, there’s the occasional bug, but it mostly works as expected.
I just realized you meant data deduplication instead of “not duped by you bitches anymore”
lol yeah I should have been clearer
Does it also cover reloading with different ads? (such that it would count impressions for different advertisers)
Usually the ad needs to be in your viewport for at least a few seconds to count as an impression. If you were just going back quickly, or quickly refreshing the page, it won’t count. If you go back or refresh, see a different ad, wait a bit, then refresh again, I think it’d count.
For skippable ads on YouTube, the advertiser only pays if you watch past the point where you can skip it. If I remember correctly, you have to watch at least 30 seconds of the video (or the full video if it’s less than 30 seconds) for it to count as a view.
What makes me angry here is, I am 90% sure the browsers could code against this.
If the user clicks a control on a webpage one time, the stack can declare “One user click! You have earned yourself One (1) navigation.” Then, the click activates some JavaScript that moves you to a new webpage. That new webpage has an auto-loader redirect that instead runs a 300ms timeout, and then takes you to some other page. The browser, meanwhile, has seen this, and establishes “We are still only operating off of that One (1) click. So, instead of adding a new page to the user history, we’ll replace that first navigation.”
I have yet to hear a satisfactory reason as to why that’s not possible.
We just got vertical align last month. There’s so many things they should be working on but are too busy trying to add more ads or monetization features.
I think the web is just too long in the tooth at this point but there’s nothing we can do.
CSS features like vertical alignment would be defined by web standards. Those fall under the non-profit org W3C. They’re pretty slow about things as to not break the fuck out of everything.
Browser behaviour like merging redirects falls on browsers tho, so yeah, we can blame Chrome or FF on that one.
Still waiting for CSS Color 4 so SVG gradients don’t look like shit. sRGB gradients are completely broken.
I think there was an extension named Skip Redirect that solved this issue…
YouTube does this. Infuriating well beyond mild.
The got some kind of resource leak too. I just close my browser sometimes lol
Motherfucker put a trigger warning on that shit
yo honk honk am here to help. Right click the back button to bring up a menu of several previous pages select when it was the search engine or whatever you used before. For Firefox. If you’re on chrome, you can cry. Honk honk, goose out.
Isn’t that exactly what OP’s screenshot is depicting?
Honk honk am goose, no braincells. Honk.
On Firefox you can also hold your left click on the back arrow for the same effect.
Wait, toads don’t goose…
Goose says “Gaa-ga”(Hauge)
You can right click (long press on mobile) to skip back to the page that took you there
That’s what OP has done; that’s what we’re seeing in this screenshot.
The back button is highlighted. This list is the list of options OP gets when he right clicks the back button.
I don’t see evidence of them skipping back two pages past the point in history that redirects which is what prompted my comment.
Not sure about that site specifically, but others that’s done it to me was easy to get around. Most of them are thwarted with basically double clicking the back button.
As the screenshot illustrates, the redirects have been repeated many times to thwart that strategy.
I get that, forgot to mention that clicking the back button very very fast is what usually works for me.
Regardless, it’s annoying af
Yeah, I also hate back-button hijacking. I suspect some websites do it to artificially force more page views for ad revenue. Try a long-press on the back button to view the history for that browser tab and click on the most recent page you think won’t redirect.
I hate that this is even a feature in the web standard. A result of some massive corporate corruption for sure.
I recently looked into this after it seemed like Facebook messed with my back button on a private mobile window:
Someone pointed out that it’s nice to have, for example, your email provider know that you probably want to go back for a message to your inbox instead of going back to the previous page.
But what if browsers monitored which sites abused the feature and showed a pop-up when you click the back button, just like they offer to show you notifications? They could show you:
This site has been reported to hijack the back button. Would you like to go back to the last domain that you visited?
and offer to remember the setting.
I usually right click the back button and go 2 entries back. Done.
Microsoft also does this a lot on some of their sites.
Usually with this, it’s like 20 entries, so pushes everything else off.
The ones where it’s only a couple entries mostly seem to be the ones where there’s multiple articles on a single page and it’s at least might be attempting to be helpful?
I usually just block the site.
Youtube does it, and it just continues to blast the wrong video you accidentally just auto-started because instead if fucking off, it shows other videos with the bad video getting just reduced.
Aaargh for the state of todays internet
I’ve had this happen only when I go back too quickly, before the page can completely load in
I use YouTube on desktop daily and I’ve never had this happen to me.
It does it on mobile
This could easily be fixed by the browsers but they don’t. Sure wish these back button tricks would stop. Especially news sites try to keep you from getting back to your search and makes your page refresh over and over. I wonder if that behavior counts as hits to their advertisers.
I just default to opening in a new tab because of shitty UX like this
I don’t know about “easily.” replaceState() is actually intended to make single-page apps easier to use, by allowing you to use your back button as expected even when you’re staying on the same URL the entire time.
Likewise, single-page apps are intended to be faster and more efficient than downloading a new static page that’s 99.9% identical to the old one every time you change something.
Fixing this bad experience would eliminate the legitimate uses of replaceState().
Now, what they could do is track your browser history “canonically” and fork it off whenever Javascript alters its state, and then allow you to use a keyboard shortcut (Alt + Back, perhaps?) to go to the “canonical” previous item in history instead of to the “forked” previous item.
I can handle life without the legitimate use case if it means no more clickjacking bs from companies that should know better
I’d prefer not to let the bad actors dictate browser design.
“Let’s get rid of images since companies can use images to spoof browserchrome elements.”
“Let’s get rid of text since scammers can pretend to be sending messages from the computer’s operating system.”
“Let’s get rid of email since phishing exists.”
Nah. We can do some stuff (like the aforementioned forked history) to ameliorate the problem, and if it’s well-known enough, companies won’t find it necessary anymore. Heck, browsers like Firefox would probably even let you select Canonical Back as the default Back Button behavior, and then you can have the web the way you want it (like people who disable Javascript).
like people who disable Javascript).
i do that, and i found that a TON of microsoft & bank/work websites just refuse to do anything without it. i love the modern internet /s
Yeah, I get it. But I fear that ship has sailed long ago.
I’m frustrated that removing bad functionality is being treated as a slippery slope with obviously bad and impossible jokes as the examples chosen.
I see a bad feature being abused, and I don’t see the removal of that bad feature as a dangerous path to getting rid of email. I don’t ascribe the same weight that you seem to towards precedent in this matter.
I’ve been working in full stack for long enough to know that history manipulation is as much a part of the modern web as images and email. I’m not trying to be flippant, that’s just the state of the modern web. Single-page apps are here, and that’s a good thing. They’re being used badly, and that’s endemic to all features. So no, history manipulation is not “bad functionality,” though I admit it’s not fully baked in its current implementation.
I accept that it’s how things are, I just personally feel as though the only way this feature could ever work as it does now is with the implementation it has now, and that the convenience of single page webapps that use history manipulation is not worth the insane annoyance of helping my grandma get out of websites that tell her that she has been hacked by the FBI.
Yeah, I get it, but like…the same could be said for emails in a world where phishing exists.
Pop a window open with a your app in it (with the user’s permission) without a back button if you want that.
A web page should be a document, not an experience.
That would absolutely make everything worse, no question; the web should be more integrated, not less. We shouldn’t incentivize even more companies to silo off their content into apps.
I think the word ‘app’ was being used in place of ‘webapp’ there, which is the general target audience for this feature.
Yes, I think you’re correct, but using browsers to coerce the web back into static documents will result in companies creating their own apps so that they can continue to deliver experiences. And the past 10+ years has shown that users will absolutely follow them.
Sorry, this comment was mainly just providing the previous user with a correction because they seemed to think that the other person that they were replying to was talking about forcing people to use phone apps, which I assume we all agree is bad and would likely work if there were a concentrated push for it.
Concerning your points after “using the browser”: I want websites to use replaceState and manage their own intra-page navigation with a cookie. They can still intercept the back button as they do now, but they should only get the single history entry until they switch to a new page, if they ever do.
