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.
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 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 use YouTube on desktop daily and I’ve never had this happen to me.
It does it on mobile
I’ve had this happen only when I go back too quickly, before the page can completely load in
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.
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.
Also: Algorithmic generated feeds where you try to click on one thing, but you click on the next thing in the list and when you click back, the feed looks completely different because it has new information on you. That thing you wanted to click on is gone and will never return.
That’s actually how I do my Lemmy feed. I have one chance to comment on a thread and if I don’t do it, when the page refreshes I lose it forever.
I’ve learned to accept that there are just some things the universe never wanted me to comment on.
Now is your chance to finally let it all out…
thats the reason why i always open links with middle click to open a new tab. helps with the above fuckery too.
…and now you’ve hit upon my other peeve: (mostly shopping) sites coded to disable browsing links in a new tab…
Perhaps it’s because I never raw dog the web, and using uBlock Origin on “medium mode” somehow fixes it, but I don’t think I have ever experienced that.
I have experienced sites that block right clicking, and that has always infuriated me. But I was able to get a little FF extension that disables right click blocking on websites. Which is pretty useful for downloading videos on sites that try to stop you from downloading their videos (though some have wisened up and can completely disable the ability to save a video through that method. The “save video as” option is completely greyed out). yt-dlp usually works in those cases, or one of the countless web-based video downloaders… but still annoying.
…ah, i may be conflating contextal menus with opening new tabs, since that’s the primary UI mode i use to do so: regardless, any kind of shenanigans which aim to disable application-level UI get under my skin…
Hate that on YouTube…
What’s worse is that YouTube sometimes doesn’t do that, i.e. when you hit back it shows the same list from the cache or something. It gives you hope and makes it worse on those occasions when it does fully refresh on back.
That belongs on /c/extremelyenraging.
Youtube recommended videos does this. Not a huge issue because I can always search for the video myself but it’s annoying.
Ugh yes.
Though on desktop I’ve completely switched over to using FreeTube, and I’ve been loving it. The order of the videos in the feed does not change. It’s great.
I don’t understand why browsers support this “functionality”.
It’s not for this, of course. It’s because in the world of single page applications built in react and angular where there is no physical back, like no actual server page to go back to just JavaScript, you have to code in what the back button means. Even though there’s no server calls to ask for a new page. New page. Most people still expect that forward and back will still go forward and back in standard navigation.
Sites like this it’s pretty clear that they just overwrite that with the last 20 calls to their own page, but the alternative is that single page applications would not be able to have forward or back functionality
if(this == this.previous) continue;
Great I’ll just add a unique guid to each path that is ignored and returns to the same place. You show me a 10 foot fence I’ll show you an 11 foot ladder.
I mean, I get that. I was making a joke. But 12 ft fence? Load in sandbox and compare html. Your move.
13 ft ladder:
<span hidden> guid </span>14 ft fence: Diff in html. If less than 10 lines different, ban.
15 ft ladder:
<div hidden> <?= rand() ?> <?= rand() ?> <?= rand() ?> <?= rand() ?> <?= rand() ?> <?= rand() ?> <?= rand() ?> <?= rand() ?> <?= rand() ?> <?= rand() ?> <?= rand() ?> <?= rand() ?> <?= rand() ?> <?= rand() ?> <?= rand() ?> </div>
It’s a very “dumb” implementation of a generally useful feature. Browsers don’t keep track of how many times you’re redirected to the same site or try to consolidate the back-button list accordingly, but they certainly could. Wouldn’t be surprised if there was a plugin to this effect.
They actually do. To avoid infinite loops. If a URL redirects to the identical URL for more than ~5 times most browsers will refuse to load and show an error instead.
That’s why sites like this will generate new URLs with the same content.
I was just thinking about this.
Super annoying because it can actually be fixed by using
History.replaceState()overHistory.pushState().I guess the reason they do it is either to keep you stuck on their sucky site, or just incompetence.
You’re right, but “incompetence” seems harsh. Maybe I’m just sensitive today.
Hanlon’s Razor: Don’t attribute to malice what can be sufficiently explained by stupidity.
I feel like when you’re talking corporations, hanlons razor needs to be reversed. Never attribute to stupidity what could be adequately explained by malice. We’ll call it Nolnahs razor.
Nolnah’s Razor…I like it, got a ring to it!
Corporations are run by stupid humans though.
idk, it seems like with this being a company that generates revenue from “clicks” doing something that essentially makes a person refresh the page 20 times seems like a good decision to make
Big Hanlon fan, but I don’t think stupidity is enough to explain why the site behaves that way.
I’m not a fan of Hanlon’s Razor, because I feel like people believe it to be some kind of steadfast law of the universe when in reality it’s just a “rule of thumb.” And honestly not even a great one imo.
I feel like there are a whole lot of bad people that use the concept as cover to help them get away with the heinous shit they do. People who do not deserve the benefit of the doubt.
I consider the razors pseudo logic.
Microsoft does this with the Xbox forums and it bothers me so much
MS does this with ALL their forums, and it’s cunty.
MS does this. They do it everywhere.
They do this with all their sites ime.
Quickly going back twice always works with MS forums. First page logs you in (or fails) and the second is the page you wanted to go.
Only the first time you visit in a while though.
I think it’s taking you away to a login page, logging you in, then bringing you back.
I can see the point if you were going to ask or answer a question, but 99% of the time you just want to see how somebody else didn’t get their problem solved by some random Indian guy who people assume works for Microsoft, who think the solution to everything is running “sfc /scannow” which has replaced chkdsk as the command most likely to take a long time, do nothing, and make the question asker go away without a solution to their problem.
I don’t allow any cookies on my browser, so that would explain why it happens to me every time
Open all links in new tabs.
This sounds horrible. I already have a tab issue
Either use tree tabs, or just close it when you’re done.
You’re clearly using tabs wrong….
No, my browser (Mullvad) clears everything upon quit. I quit every time I get on a new “subject”.
What helps with this is clicking links with mousewheeldown, I automatically opens in a new tab. Also MWD on the tab label will close it, so you don’t have to aim for the ‘x’.
A mouse with thumb buttons is really handy as they do foreward and back, double clicking that gets you out of the issue caused in op
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.
Three things.
-
Yes. Sometimes this is malice. Sometimes this is an attempt to drive impressions and page views.
-
This can also be caused by poorly configured web applications that update in real time. If, say, some sports website is giving you real-time data about the game as it progresses, a poorly configured web application might be creating a dynamic URL for every change. When you access the older page, it will be instructed to take you to the most recent data, so pressing back is taking you to old data on that page, and then immediately realizing that data is old so refreshing it with the most relevant data.
-
This is a super common misconfiguration in single page web applications. Domain.com will take you to an application that renders at domain.com/en-us/home. Pressing back takes you to domain.com, and guess what happens next?
This is basically 99.99% of these cases. I would say if its on some shitty news site with 1000 ads that somehow sneak by AdBlock and UBlok Origin, it’s case 1. Otherwise, it’s case 2 or 3.
The picture instance is either case 1 or 2.
I know this site, it’s 1 for sure
Microsoft website does this (especially their useless answer), I guess it’s malice
MS makes a redirect to log you in, you can hit back button twice to escape. Bad design but not malice.
and neither case provides a service in a state that should be exposed to the outside. Either due to malice or incompetence.
Any website managed/developed by someone certified in the last decade or more knows not to do that.
It’s absolutely malicious, both to drive SRO and to keep “accidental” clicks from backing out so quickly
-
Oh man I hate this shit so much.
Added to my blocked websites
Firefox should really implement a feature that hides this bullshit from the previous sites menu
This is one of the absolute greatest reasons to support opening most everything in a new tab (as long as you don’t end up like my mom who at one point had over 100 tabs on her phone). Doesn’t matter if it’s a link from the same website, from a search engine, or whatever else there is. New tab.
Then on android Firefox you accidentally hit the back button and it closes the tab and you can’t go forward and you already navigatedc away from the originating page on the other tab forcing you to open your history and try to figure out where the hell it is.
Ctrl Shift T doesn’t work on that case?
Edit: I skipped the Android bit, sorry.
Edit 2: From the 3 dots menu INSIDE the tabs view you can access a list of recently closed tabs, not nearly as fast as a 3 key combo, but maybe better than looking for the tab in the history. Also apparently there’s an extension that may help.
android Firefox
how you hitting CTRL on a phone?
pulls out USB-C to USB-A adapter
No, ctl shift T doesn’t work well on android.
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
I’ve always wondered. Is there really a benefit to a ton of redirects like that? Like, do they gain anything by making it harder to back out?
Or is it just extremely incompetent website programming?
more ads displayed with each redirect i guess?
I always just assumed it was a form of “dark pattern” meant to try to stop people from leaving their website once they’ve entered (e.g., coming from a different site, you can’t just hit backspace or click back to immediately exit their site. You’re stuck now).
I think that’s right for a website where you accidentally clicked an ad and now it’s trying to convince you you have a virus and you need to download their virus to remove it. Or maybe for an ad pop-up where annoying you might increase the chances that the content makes it into your brain.
But for a news website i have trouble seeing the logic.
News websites get revenue via ads. This makes people load the same page again, loading the ads again.
I’d have expected ad providers to catch on pretty quickly that there’s cheating involved, no?
Nope. They just hear back about number of views and how it influences the shoppers and brags about how it works.
I honestly think it’s mostly the idea of advertising that keeps it running as an industry.
Like Facebook juicing their video viewership and recent news about Google using off screen ads in their views and impressions numbers.
They also get paid off of this, the advertiser pays for those impressions.
Advertisers can’t switch because they can’t not be present on big platforms. The whole ad industry is just companies scamming each other and the consumer.
Any page that makes their revenue through ads do everything they can to maximize engagement, and that means keeping them on your website as long as possible. So any little thing they can do to that end, they will.
